Minneapolis Swat Team Raids Wrong House

[mp43sniper]

I'm 34 and tend to see it both ways. While watching these SWAT shows on tv I get very concerned about them enjoying the job and going way too far sometimes. What happens when (and I do mean when) they hit a heavily armed, completely innocent guy who is like me and would rather be dead than live without his legally owned, legally purchased, protected-by-the-US-frickin-Constitution firearms? I'd say there would be a terrible fight and if the guy was prepared enough, and there are some guys out there ready for things like home invasions, it would get really ugly really quick.

 

Now, on the other hand, I live in a very small town. One block over from me I can see a trailer that's been there for several years. It's been rented out ever since it was put in. About a year ago the people that lived there moved out and this other crew appeared. They leave their crap all over the yard, blast music all night, break windows and cover them with cardboard or wood, and walk around the neighborhood with dreadlocks and acting all screwed up. We have no SWAT unit and there is probably no reason to bother them. But right now, I'm 60 miles from home at work wondering if they have enough money to pay for whatever it is they do all day (and night) or if they're going to stagger over to my house and decide to borrow some stuff from my wife and 3 year old son.

 

Sure, I could walk over there tonight with my SAR-1 and shoot the place full of holes on the way in, tell everyone to get the $%^ out, and burn it to the ground. Do I have legal justification to do that? Heck no. I'd love to see the coppers do it, but then I think man, what if they're not stoners and just metal heads that have really bad yard cleanup habits? And then I think what I'd like to do if I was illegally and wrongly raided because I don't do anything wrong.

 

So yeah, you can think what you'd do in a raid. And yeah, you can say what you'd do if you thought the place nearby was infested with crackheads. But then reality sets in and we have to take a look at who we really are and what we'd really do if illegally and wrongly raided or if we sent the coppers after the weirdos next door without proof they were breaking the law.

 

I'm just thankful we have LE to help us out. Maybe this Saturday I'll go up to the Sheriff's office, buy everyone coffee and donuts, and strike up a casual conversation about, oh I dunno, how the neighborhood has changed since I was a kid.

 

Craig

Edited January 10, 2008 by mp43sniper

[Hawkeye_Joe]

I'm just thankful we have LE to help us out. Maybe this Saturday I'll go up to the Sheriff's office, buy everyone coffee and donuts, and strike up a casual conversation about, oh I dunno, how the neighborhood has changed since I was a kid.

 

That is a good statement and a great idea... I think that it would be in your best interests to do just that. Make no statements about what you would do "IF" those guys did something. That just shows "intent" if something does happen. Tell the LEO's about your concerns and see if they can't step up drive-bys in your area. Dropping a word or two on those guys will get them in the Sheriff's radar and that can only be a good thing.

[PhilOhio]

Well, just while we were having this discussion, it happened again here in Ohio, only some 60 miles away down in Lima. A 26-year-old mother of five was shot dead in her home last Friday, two aimed shots in the upper torso, that is, by a Lima, OH, SWAT team veteran who is a 52-year-old sergeant with some twenty years experience on the team. It turns out it is not the first fatal smash crash shooting in which he has been directly involved which now, in retrospect, raises some questions which are being reexamined.

 

I didn't mention it here until now. The FBI has just been brought in to investigate and, after six days of withholding the info, Ohio has publicly identified the SWAT team shooter by name and photo.

 

Oh, I forgot to mention that the woman had her youngest 14-month-year-old baby in her arms. Maybe it looked like an AK-47. The baby was also hit by one of the bullets and is alive, but had to have a finger amputated.

 

The "boyfriend" and presumed father of at least the injured baby was a crack dealer with a past conviction record relating to drugs and firearms. He was arrested at the scene, and both marijuana and crack were found in the house, as expected.

 

It was the correct address.

 

Get this. The SWAT team knew there were children inside, so they threw their flash bang firecrackers outside, in the yard, instead of inside the house. How responsible. But boys gotta have a little fun, don't they?

 

Our own First Sergeant is a deputy in a department some distanace to the south, and he may have more details than me, by now. The story keeps sounding more bad and more sad. I know it is very upsetting and discouraging to a lot of good LE personnel in our area. Here's one more classical example where misuse of another SWAT team turns more and more ordinary citizens against the police in general, and makes it ever harder for any department to get essential community cooperation in ripping out the roots of the drug problem.

 

The local NAACP and the usual agitators are pretty steamed up (this time rightfully, in my opinion), and are talking about bringing in Al Sharpton, Jesse the Mouth, etc., ad nauseum. But who is to blame this time? Not local black leaders, for sure. There have been meetings and marches and peaceful demonstrations. I hope it doesn't escalate. But as usual, some in the community work to make it happen, while others work to prevent it. What wasted effort. All of them, including the police, should be focusing their combined effort on cleaning up the problems which caused this.

 

The focus of the current complaint is that the SWAT tactics used went far beyond what was necessary for this type of apprehension, and that they lead directly to the death of this woman. How do we dispute that?

 

But I do see somebody with whom the SWAT team can share blame. The mother of the young woman killed is publicly railing about all the bad cops responsible for her young unmarried daughter/mother's death, and she is demanding an investigation and punishment of everybody responsible. That's fine, but I also want to see one of those perhaps most directly responsible punished: this loudest accuser. She knew full well exactly who and what the drug dealer was, and that he had lived with her daughter for more than two years in that crack house with the kids...while creating even more of them there, and that he had a drug and firearms record. What did she do, or try to do, about that? Maybe Al Sharpton will explain that to us.

 

It gets better. This was a rented house. The owner is a highly visible black gentleman who is a member of the Lima city council. He is claiming, golly gee, how was I to know this was a crack house or that the guy paying me the rent was a drug dealer?

 

Yeah, right.

 

So in any event, the police have no choice but to try to be holier than Caesar's wife. It's the nature of the job. In this case, at least in my opinion, they didn't do it. Once again, the woman took not one "stray" bullet, but two aimed hits to the upper torso, one striking the baby also.

 

The funeral is tomorrow. Oh yes, the City of Lima is paying for it, but an official stated that this must not be interpreted as any acknowledgement of wrongdoing or liability on its part. I guess they just pay for funerals every now and then, as random gestures of good will in the community.

 

The baby is still in the hospital and relatives are taking care of the other four small children. The "boyfriend" is in the slammer for now, but he'll probably be out pretty soon...just like last time.

 

I predict there will be an investigation of Lima SWAT team tactics, the finding will be that nobody is to blame and these things just happen, and all parties will get back to doing things exactly as they did before, with more emphasis on not getting caught.

 

And we'll keep having more of these deaths and tragedies until somebody puts teeth into a national effort to dramatically limit the number of SWAT teams in existence, how they are used, and how they are equipped and funded. It isn't even a debateable question anymore.

[FireMerc]

I am certainly not trying to to pick a fight with anyone least of all you Phil, I respect your posts and opinion's.

However that being said.

 

I feel sorry for the baby, it did not ask to be born and had no control of the situation it was in.

 

I do not feel sorry at all for the wife/girlfriend if you associate with criminals (especially ones that ruin so many people's lives) bad things will happen. If you prefer not to be arrested, shot, etc. don't associate/live with known drug dealers.

 

I do not feel sorry for the mother, she should have done a better job raising her daughter or at least been prepared for this to happen. I am so sick of parents of this kind of trash saying "my poor innocent baby" if I were to be arrested for jaywalking my parents would be first to stand up in court and apologize to society for my actions, right before they kicked my butt (even at my age).

 

I do feel sorry for the officer involved, he has devoted his life to protect us from this kind of trash and now has to live with this mistake. He will not feel proud of his decision that day, if we had a court system that enforced sentences he would not have had to make it.

 

We should not have SWAT teams because we should not be living in a society that required them. If we had parents that weren't so greedy and actually had a parent at home raising the child, a school system actually allowed to discipline a child, a court system that would actually enforce laws against the child our society would not.

Edited January 10, 2008 by FireMerc

[Chromebolt]

I have no idea why the woman was shot. I'm sure the newspaper will tell us all.

 

But do tell us Phil: How would you execute a search warrant of this type? Drugs, guns, crack house.

[PhilOhio]

FireMerc,

 

I pretty much agree with everything you are saying. But I don't yet have enough information to agree, or not agree, about the woman who died. Sure, she knew what the guy was, and she was there with him. Was she an active participant in the drug dealing, or just forced to tolerate it to survive with those kids? Lots of people in these situations are not the brightest bulbs around. She had five kids by age 26.

 

But whatever she did or was, did she deserve to absorb two hot slugs while holding a baby in her arms in her own house?

 

No. Not by any means, unless she was pointing a gun at the officer.

 

And maybe she was. We don't know even that yet. But if it were true, somehow I think the Lima PD would have publicized it by now. Could be wrong, though.

 

Yes, my heart goes out to that baby and the other kids. What sort of drugs were in their bodies when they were born? If so, how does that change the rest of their lives, and ours? Multiply that by the thousands or millions of such innocent kids across the U.S. They didn't ask fo it. Our problems and frustrations dealing with this Thompson hobby start looking pretty insignificant.

 

Can't say much more about the officer until we hear what he says about why he fired those shots...if we know then.

 

But FireMerc, you cover it pretty well in your last sentence.

 

As for how many SWAT teams we should have, the correct answer is "as few as possible". And we need leaders who are able and inclined to make fair and realistic judgements on that, and not be afraid to make it stick. We have few.

 

What a tough call it is to strike a balance between being rigid and dictatorial, or being an ineffectual worthless weenie "leader". We all see how that has been going. Maybe the SWAT phenomenon is the whole LE community crying out for relief from it. It seems to be too often counterproductive.

[PhilOhio]

I have no idea why the woman was shot. I'm sure the newspaper will tell us all.

 

But do tell us Phil: How would you execute a search warrant of this type? Drugs, guns, crack house.

 

Chromebolt,

 

I'd take a lot more time to think about it than I'm spending on this quick answer. But I think there would be at least 24 hours of steady surveillance before the strike, and one small group would grab the guy just after he left the house next time he chose to do so, while the rest would go into the house much as they did, with just the mother and kids present.

 

There would have been some intensive advance briefings of team members: This you will NOT do, etc. Maybe this was done.

 

There would be no flash bangs.

 

There would be no door smashing.

 

I might pick up the mother of the woman killed, in advance of the raid, tell her what was in the balance, and ask her to come along to gain peaceful entrance without breaking the door down and jeopardizing the kids' safety; knock and get her daughter to open up. If she refused, she'd be held temporarily until the warrant had been executed.

 

I'd omit the part about opening fire on the mother of the kids.

 

Oh yes, let me add a couple things. You mentioned "drugs, guns, crack house." There was no mention of any guns being found at the house, so far; just on the guy's past record. Neighbors were interviewed and they allegedly said there were no large numbers of strange comings and goings, as with the stereotyped crack house. It just appeared to be a normal residence. Naturally we don't know if even that is true, or just journalists painting a self serving sympathetic scene for us. It may be that this was just where the dealer lived, and he conducted business elsewhere. So it's hard to say if this was the standard crack house. But drugs were definitely there.

 

And shots were fired.

 

So Chromebolt, now please tell us how would you do it, from the expert's point of view, having executed all those warrants already? Was the way it was done probably the best way?

 

 

 

[Chromebolt]

Experience from dealing with crack dealers with past firearm/drug convictions would lead me to probably plan a similar take down. With this guys record, the local leos probably had good intel on this individual. If it was a sealed warrant, the totality of the probable cause will not be known. Search Warrants are good for 15 days in Va, but for drugs the time limit is severely reduced since the drug PC vanishes rather quickly (so it is not always possible to wait an extended time). The PC vanishes because the drugs are usually sold quickly and the PC then goes away. We usually have a 3 day period for drug search warrants.

 

Trying to maintain a mobilized SWAT Team along with surveillance for up to 3 days is not feasible.

 

Most search warrants are written for the residence and all persons therein. If he is outside the residence, the search warrant may not cover him. Most crack/crank drug dealers (especially those with history) are armed. An outside take down could endanger others. Containment is usually desirable.

 

When knowing children are in the house, additional care must be taken. Like I said, I have no idea why the female was shot. The facts will come out in the investigation. If the officer was trigger happy, he should be held accountable. I've found guns in cribs/strollers before (along with drugs).

 

I've dealt with many crack/crankheads. They are not a compliant group of individuals, nor are they always rational.

[mp43sniper]

If she refused, she'd be held temporarily until the warrant had been executed.

I understand that it's legal to detain individuals in addition to arresting them. But I doubt it's legal to do when known the person in question has nothing to do with the crime. Can LEOs really "hold" people whenever they want? I know what you meant, and I agree with the premise and how it would help, but it's just working out in my head.

 

:soap:

 

I could be wrong about all this, but I'd be shocked. Just reading that sentence I quoted gave me the heebie jeebies. I originally started this out as "are you friggin kidding me" etc, etc, but I wasn't looking for a fight just an answer.

 

Craig

[PhilOhio]

Mp43 sniper,

 

You said, "I understand that it's legal to detain individuals in addition to arresting them. But I doubt it's legal to do when known the person in question has nothing to do with the crime. Can LEOs really "hold" people whenever they want? I know what you meant, and I agree with the premise and how it would help, but it's just working out in my head."

 

I was thinking about all this when I posted it. I'm not sure whether there is a legal work around. I was trying to theorize a way to give this person the chance to protect her daughter and grandchildren against accidental dangers, hoping she would be willing to help...in her own interests. But if she refuses or misunderstands, how do you prevent her from interfering in the raid? One way might be to have it prearranged that a radio message to this effect, to the team near the house, would be the signal to go ahead immediately, and you then physically prevent the mother of the mother from making a telephone call to interfere before this could be done.

 

Because all such things are difficult to figure out and execute, I expect the inclination will always be to do the easiest thing...to go ahead and crash on in like, or rather "as", storm troopers, and if bystanders get hurt, that's tough. ...which is what happened in Lima.

 

Chromebolt,

 

You say, "Trying to maintain a mobilized SWAT Team along with surveillance for up to 3 days is not feasible."

Is that a fact? First of all, I didn't say 3 days. I said 24 hours. Second, a one or two man surveillance operation and a SWAT team are two different things doing two different jobs. No need to have a team on standby. Somebody watches the house, the guy leaves, he is picked up a couple blocks away, and somebody else goes into the house a short time later, carefully and at their leisure...without all the firecrackers and smashed doors and shot up babies and dead moms.

 

What you were saying was that you would do it pretty much as it was done, unless I misunderstood you. What I am saying is that this is exactly the thinking which leads to these disasters.

 

And you say that it can't be done differently because of the way the warrant is written. So draft it differently, to match different methodology. The judge signs what you put in front of him, if it looks lawful. He also wants to be helpful, to roll up bad guys, and to not get anybody else hurt. I'm not the guy who is sympathetic to all these sophistic arguments that we can't change a thing because we have always done it this way and some mysterious force has set that in concrete. If something is broken, fix it. If not, leave it alone.

 

You say it just can't be any other way, for all sorts of reasons I consider ridiculous. No drug bust is so crucial that, when you know the house is full of little kids, you just have to do it anyway, no matter what the risks, or some small time drug dealer might get away for a day or so. Baloney. A case like this, with five kids on the premises, is so uncommon that there is no reason to use the full court press. It will keep. Get the scumbag some other way. None of them are that important.

 

And you say, "I've dealt with many crack/crankheads. They are not a compliant group of individuals, nor are they always rational."

 

That's right. So the rest of us, and the police, have to ride herd on them for the protection of the community. And we are supposed to be rational always. So we don't wait until they ride into down and settle down at a card table in the Long Branch Saloon, and then burn down Dodge City to get them because "containment is usually desirable" and it was "feasible". Someplace we have to work in "sensible" and "more safe".

 

Don't get me wrong. We're all on the same page. I despise these people as much as you do, and want them as out of the picture as the law allows. More, actually. But I also don't want anybody else hurt. I don't believe any "collateral damage" is acceptable, ever. And in bygone years I've gotten in trouble with people who are pretty angry with this point of view. But my opinion is that if we don't do things a better way, we have no business doing them any way; we would deserve no public trust.

 

Guys,

 

A week has passed since this bad raid went down. The mother's funeral is today. The full impact of its probable significance is starting to sink into my mind. Anybody notice the similarities to the Ruby Ridge disaster? An FBI sniper shot and killed Randy Weaver's wife while she was holding a baby, standing inside the screen door of their isolated rural house. This was a long planned ATF/FBI raid. It was about Mr. Weaver's alleged NFA violations. He later won a huge damage judgment against the government. To my knowledge, nobody on the team, nor the planners and managers, ever suffered much inconvenience from it; maybe a little embarrassment and short term bad PR. Unfortunately, attempts to bring Mrs. Weaver back from the dead have so far been unsuccessful. Maybe they'll have better luck in Lima. As in Lima, the tactics used in the Weaver raid were totally unnecessary and excessive. At least a jury later thought so.

 

When does all this stop?

 

 

[mp43sniper]

**edit cause I don't want raided myself haha

 

To answer your question, probably never.

 

Craig

Edited January 11, 2008 by mp43sniper

[Chromebolt]

If she refused, she'd be held temporarily until the warrant had been executed.

I understand that it's legal to detain individuals in addition to arresting them. But I doubt it's legal to do when known the person in question has nothing to do with the crime. Can LEOs really "hold" people whenever they want? I know what you meant, and I agree with the premise and how it would help, but it's just working out in my head.

 

:soap:

 

I could be wrong about all this, but I'd be shocked. Just reading that sentence I quoted gave me the heebie jeebies. I originally started this out as "are you friggin kidding me" etc, etc, but I wasn't looking for a fight just an answer.

 

Craig

It appeared that quote came from me. But that quote was not from my post.

 

But to answer your question, yes folks can be held temporarily while investigating criminal activity. the length of time varies. For example, police see people running from a store where the alarm is sounding. they can detain these individuals while investigating. The courts have said a "reasonable amount of time" Define reasonable.

 

But when it is determined people have no connection to illegal activity, they can no longer be detained.

 

Phil:

 

I guess our disagreement seems to be on whne to deploy SWAT. Your argument seems to say they should not be deployed when children are around. Or time expended on drug search warrants. I guess we will not agree if this is your position.

 

I see little difference between SWAT and regular patol officers when entering a residence to effect a search warrant. Crackheads with known firearm possession elevate the risk. And if the drug dealer is taken outside who is to say there are not others in the house possibly armed. A crackhouse is usually a place where crackheads frequent.

 

Crackheads/drug dealers are usually armed. And if I had to enter under these circumstances, my weapon would also be drawn (I'm a Detective, not SWAT). Or are you saying no weapons should be drawn if children are present?

Remember this is not a search warrant to get financial records for a white collar crime. These are usually very violent people.

 

And under your scenerio, police attempt to take down the drug dealer when he leaves in a car. Suppose he gets into a pursuit. I'm sure some would then say the police should not chase since it endangers others. Drug dealers frequently do not want to get caught.

 

And as I said, if this was a negligent discharge, this officer should be held accountable. I think most SWAT members are a cocky bunch of individuals. But I do see a need for them.

[PhilOhio]

Phil:

 

I guess our disagreement seems to be on whne to deploy SWAT.

 

No, not even that. First, we should simply get rid of the whole SWAT terminology thing. It's the cops trying to paint a picture of themselves as invincible, omnipresent power over everybody 24 hours a day. The public is absorbing all this, in an extremely negative way. That sucks. That stinks. The term and the association in people's minds isn't about anything very good. It's toxic. I'm a white guy in a sleepy rural small town community. But I've lived in cities all over the world. Can you imagine how this has poisoned public perceptions in urban ethnic communities? I guess we have figured that out long ago. Forget all the juvenile masks and military uniforms and storm trooper boots and machineguns and the whole authoritatiran pile of horseshit that is SWAT. Which is exactly what it is. You don't even want to know how I would describe the people promoting and justifying and perpetuating all this. It's for them, not for the public welfare. Force should be deployed relative to what is ACTUALLY REQUIRED. In my opinion, rarely is that happening right now.

 

Your argument seems to say they should not be deployed when children are around.

 

No, employ force presented in a slightly different way when children are around; adult force, not childish SWAT force. Excuse me for saying so, but you have quite a tendency to try to twist my position on all this into something absurd, totally unrelated to what I say and obviously think. I don't believe anybody else here is having difficulty understanding it.

 

Or time expended on drug search warrants. I guess we will not agree if this is your position.

 

If it were my position I would have said so, but I didn't. Right? My position is only what I say it to be, not as you append it, so as to twist it to absurdity which is easily shot down. Absurdity is what too many SWAT teams are now doing, scary and deadly absurdity. Big boys acting like little boys, but shooting real bullets.

 

I see little difference between SWAT and regular patol officers when entering a residence to effect a search warrant.

 

BINGO! You've hit it on the head. This is how it SHOULD be, but IS NOT. Does that make sense to you? Ponder.

 

Crackheads with known firearm possession elevate the risk. And if the drug dealer is taken outside who is to say there are not others in the house possibly armed. A crackhouse is usually a place where crackheads frequent.

 

Crackheads/drug dealers are usually armed. And if I had to enter under these circumstances, my weapon would also be drawn (I'm a Detective, not SWAT). Or are you saying no weapons should be drawn if children are present?

 

No, I did not say or think that. Here you go again, trying to append my position to add something absurd which was never there. But drawn guns do not have to be killing as many bystanders as has been happening recently. Somebody authorized to carry and use lethal power is supposed to have the brains to know when not to, especially under pressure. You and I manage it. Anybody who shows he can't, should be reassigned to a job where he can still contribute, but not likely kill accidentally. That's just good management.

 

Remember this is not a search warrant to get financial records for a white collar crime. These are usually very violent people.

 

Right you are. We're not talking about writing tickets for spitting on the grass.

 

And under your scenerio, police attempt to take down the drug dealer when he leaves in a car.

 

I said no such thing. You're inventing again. I said take him down other than at the house.

 

Suppose he gets into a pursuit. I'm sure some would then say the police should not chase since it endangers others. Drug dealers frequently do not want to get caught.

 

Yes, some might say that. I didn't. There is potential danger in any apprehension. You accept the level which is the best compromise. I suggested that keeping the kids and mama out of the picture should have been top priority on this one, but it wasn't. I still think so. You know, I'll bet you are absolutely right about drug dealers not wanting to get caught. There. I've learned something.

 

And as I said, if this was a negligent discharge, this officer should be held accountable.

 

Truth is, we still don't know the details. I don't want to second guess why the Lima PD has refused to even offer a general rationale for what happened...two shots into the woman yet...but everybody begins to draw negative conclusions when the silence goes on this long.

 

Oh yes, some more details are beginning to leak out. There was STILL MORE shooting there. They shot and killed two pit bulls on the premises. (I'm shedding no tears for the crack dealer's little pets. ) But I am wondering whether the dogs were indoors or out...vis a vis the kids. This whole case keeps sounding murkier by the day.

 

I think most SWAT members are a cocky bunch of individuals.

 

Right you are. They have to be and should be. That would be part of my screening and selection criteria...along with as much balance in the other direction as you can safely get, without destroying the operational utility of this type of personality. It can be a tough job of finding the right compromise, and sometimes it doesn't work...in one direction or the other.

 

But I do see a need for them.

 

So do I. So does everybody else here, I suspect. But I don't think we need or should have even 5% of the SWAT teams which now exist, equipped and ready to storm off half cocked and fully loaded and ready to do frightening things that don't have to be done, against a counter force which does not exist. This might be the only point where we significantly disagree, or maybe you agree with me on this. Enough SWAT is good; too much SWAT is very bad. Right now we have far, far too much SWAT all over the place. We need to swat SWAT almost completely out of the picture because the very concept, and the way it is being practiced and glorified, is absolutely toxic to the society...which has more than enough problems already.

 

'Course, when we disband all those SWAT teams we've got to change the MG laws and get all those surplus MP-5s made transferable, so we can shoot pumpkins next October with something other than the usual Thompsons. Maybe Hillary or Osama Obama can help us out.

 

But let me end the sermon on a serious note, my real obsession. I want to turn back the clock. I want good people...little kids, young adults, working guys and gals, oldsters, everybody...to feel about the police the way they did in 1950...not as the enemy, something to be irrationally feared. I want people to make it easier for cops to investigate and roll up bad guys. And there's far too much badness in the law itself which is blurring the line between genuine bad guys and good guys who don't want to blindly follow orders from an abusive government which no longer bases its legitimacy upon the public will. I guess that's a pretty big order, but we need to try harder, or this system is all washed up. Sure, I kid around, but not on this. We are in serious trouble and SWAT misuse is part of it.

 

[Chromebolt]

Phil:

But let me end the sermon on a serious note, my real obsession. I want to turn back the clock. I want good people...little kids, young adults, working guys and gals, oldsters, everybody...to feel about the police the way they did in 1950...not as the enemy, something to be irrationally feared. I want people to make it easier for cops to investigate and roll up bad guys. And there's far too much badness in the law itself which is blurring the line between genuine bad guys and good guys who don't want to blindly follow orders from an abusive government which no longer bases its legitimacy upon the public will. I guess that's a pretty big order, but we need to try harder, or this system is all washed up. Sure, I kid around, but not on this. We are in serious trouble and SWAT misuse is part of it.

[/color]

 

 

I think we agree on one thing, people here do understand your position. The statement from context "blindly follow orders from an abusive government which no longer bases its legitimacy upon the public will." kinda says it all.

 

Chromebolt

[RoscoeTurner]

I have been following the stories of the militarization of the civilian police in our country for some time. The thought of this first occured to me in the late 80's during a routine driver's license check that so often happens in my state. The highway is blocked and every one passing through must show their drivers license in sort of the old "Your papers, Please" method, I say this as joke as the purpose is far less sinister. Anyway the policeman doing the check was dressed in black fatiques and bloused combat boots, now with me being in the 101st Airborne at the time I looked at this guy as a bit overdressed for the job of standing on the center line in broad day light checking to see if people had valid drivers licenses or not. Remember now this is the 1980's long before the 9/11 attacks and the war on terror. Since that traffic stop I have made it a point to make note of how police officers dress for the job. I grew up when police still dressed as in the Norman Rockwell era of policemen when they were looked at more as protectors and friends rather than some para military force that SWAT gives the impression of. I still remember when policemen looked like policemen with bus driver hats, Sam Browne belts and the like.

 

Later in the National Guard I flew marijuana search missions with local law enforcement, DEA and National Guard members as cutters. The thing that started to bother me was the mixing of military with civilian law enforcement. I watched as some of our young Guardsmen started looking at anyone on the ground as suspects regardless of their activity. These missions I believed were beginning to give them the attitude that anyone not in a uniform were to be suspect and controled by those who were. Sounds good for operations in a war such as I was in the 80's in El Salvador but not in rural Mississippi, their own country.

 

SWAT teams for the most part in my opinion operate for the benefit of the SWAT team and not the public who they are charged to serve.

 

Below is just one sample of the many articles you can find online dealing with the militarization of our police departments. The examples of SWAT team abuse can be found all over our country, not long ago in my state did a SWAT team kick in the wrong door and beat on a couple in their 80's enough to send them to the hospital for a number of days.

 

Don't get me wrong I support law enforcement but law enforcement gone wrong is something I have no patience for.

 

 

http://www.reason.com/news/show/121169.html

 

 

Our Militarized Police Departments

Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Crime

 

Radley Balko | July 2, 2007

 

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak today.

 

I’m here to talk about police militarization, a troubling trend that’s been on the rise in America’s police departments over the last 25 years.

 

Militarization is a broad term that refers to using military-style weapons, tactics, training, uniforms, and even heavy equipment by civilian police departments.

 

It’s a troubling trend because the military has a very different and distinct role than our domestic peace officers. The military’s job is to annihilate a foreign enemy. The police are supposed to protect us while upholding our constitutional rights. It’s dangerous to conflate the two.

 

But that’s exactly what we’re doing. Since the late 1980s, Mr. Chairman, thanks to acts passed by the U.S. Congress, millions of pieces of surplus military equipment have been given to local police departments across the country.

 

We’re not talking just about computers and office equipment. Military-grade semi-automatic weapons, armored personnel vehicles, tanks, helicopters, airplanes, and all manner of other equipment designed for use on the battlefield is now being used on American streets, against American citizens.

 

Academic criminologists credit these transfers with the dramatic rise in paramilitary SWAT teams over the last quarter century.

 

SWAT teams were originally designed to be used in violent, emergency situations like hostage takings, acts of terrorism, or bank robberies. From the late 1960s to the early 1980s, that’s primarily how they were used, and they performed marvelously.

 

But beginning in the early 1980s, they’ve been increasingly used for routine warrant service in drug cases and other nonviolent crimes. And thanks to the Pentagon transfer programs, there are now a lot more of them.

 

This is troubling because paramilitary police actions are extremely volatile, necessarily violent, overly confrontational, and leave very little margin for error. These are acceptable risks when you’re dealing with an already violent situation featuring a suspect who is an eminent threat to the community.

 

But when you’re dealing with nonviolent drug offenders, paramilitary police actions create violence instead of defusing it. Whether you’re an innocent family startled by a police invasion that inadvertently targeted the wrong home or a drug dealer who mistakes raiding police officers for a rival drug dealer, forced entry into someone’s home creates confrontation. It rouses the basest, most fundamental instincts we have in us – those of self-preservation – to fight when flight isn’t an option.

 

Peter Kraska, a criminologist at the University of Eastern Kentucky, estimates we’ve seen a startling 1,500 percent increase in the use of SWAT teams in this country from the early 80s until the early 2000s. And the vast majority of these SWAT raids are for routine warrant service.

 

These violent raids on American homes, when coupled with the imperfect, often ugly methods used in drug policing, have set the stage for disturbingly frequent cases of police raiding the homes not only of recreational, nonviolent drug users, but the homes of people completely innocent of any crime at all.

 

Take a look at the map on the monitor http://www.cato.org/raidmap/. This is a map of the botched paramilitary police raids I found while researching a paper for the Cato Institute last summer. It is by no means inclusive. It only includes those cases for which I was able to find a newspaper account or court record. Based on my research, I’m convinced that the vast majority of victims of mistaken raids are to afraid, intimidated, embarrassed, or concerned about retaliation to report what happened to them.

 

Pay particular attention to the red markers on the map. Those are the approximately 40 cases where a mistaken raid resulted in the death of a completely innocent American citizen.

 

The most recent example of course is the drug raid in Atlanta last fall that killed 92-year old Kathryn Johnston. Ms. Johnston mistook the raiding police officers for criminal intruders. When she met them with a gun, they opened fire and killed her. The police were acting on an uncorroborated tip from a convicted felon.

 

I’d estimate I find news reports of mistaken raids on Americans homes about once a week. If you’re wondering, yes, there was one just this week. This past Saturday, in Durango, Colorado, police raided the home of 77-year-old Virginia Herrick. Ms. Herrick, who takes oxygen, was forced to the ground and handcuffed at gunpoint while officers ravaged through her home.

 

They had the wrong address. In just the last month, there have been mistaken raids in New York City; Annapolis, Maryland; Hendersonville, North Carolina; Bonner County, Idaho; and Stockton, California.

 

In each case, innocent American citizens had the sanctity of their homes invaded by agents of the government behaving more like soldiers at war than peace officers upholding and protecting our constitutional rights.

 

800 times per week in this country, a SWAT team breaks open an American’s door, and invades his home. Few turn up any weapons at all, much less high-power weapons. Less than half end with felony charges for the suspects. And only a small percentage end up doing significant time in prison.

 

Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Congress consider ending the federal incentives that are driving this trend, and that the Congress reign in the copious use of SWAT teams and among federal police agencies.

 

There are appropriate uses for these kinds of tactics. But the bulk of the dramatic rise in paramilitary police operations is attributable to inappropriate use of SWAT teams for routine warrant service.

 

It’s time we stopped the war talk, the military tactics, and the military gear. America’s domestic police departments should be populated by peace officers, not the troops of an occupying military force.

 

Radley Balko is a senior editor for reason. He gave this testimony before the House Subcommittee on Crime on June 21, 2007.

Edited January 13, 2008 by RoscoeTurner

[PhilOhio]

Roscoe,

 

I wonder how many completely innocent people have died, been maimed for life, or terrorized by home grown terrorists with badges since Mr. Balko delivered his speech before the subcommittee in June of 2007? And I wonder how many congressmen and senators have lifted a finger to do something about it in the same time period? I'll bet the answer to the first question is "quite a few" and the answer to the second question may be "zero". But I hope not. With the record of congress in our time though, there is not much reason to be optimistic.

 

Chromebolt,

 

From your last condescending line, "I think we agree on one thing, people here do understand your position. The statement from context "blindly follow orders from an abusive government which no longer bases its legitimacy upon the public will." kinda says it all.", I surmise that you regard my point of view, as you see it, with utter contempt and disdain. But I'm curious as to exactly how you would summarize your own views, as with answers to a couple of simple "yes" or "no" questions; especially since you identify yourself as an active on-duty law enforcement officer with many years of experience. You certainly should be in a position to have an in depth understanding of all this...as you have been representing.

 

These are yes or no questions. First, do you think that there is some possibility that the dramatically proliferating numbers of SWAT teams in the United States are being rather widely abused by those who control them, as evidenced by hard statistics on the rising number of wrongful deaths and injuries and much more?

Yes.

 

or

 

No.

 

Or, do you think that all these criticisms (including mine) of SWAT team useage abuse and the evolving concepts relating to them are just more irrational bitching by a bunch of crypto liberals and/or left wing kooks and misinformed idiots who know nothing about it and don't have the great expertise you believe you have?

Yes.

 

or

 

No.

 

I'm pretty sure that your opinion could be accurately characterized by one unequivocal answer to each question. Mine can.

 

 

[Chromebolt]

Phil:

 

This quote from one of my earlier posts sums it up for me "And as I said, if this was a negligent discharge, this officer should be held accountable. I think most SWAT members are a cocky bunch of individuals. But I do see a need for them." Just like I believe my quote from you seems to sum up your position.

 

I attempted to provide some insight to search warrants, their executions and limitations. I'm not gonna change your position and you're not going to change mine.

 

We probably do agree that we like Thompsons.

[scotty]

That map says the most I think:

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

[RoscoeTurner]

That map says the most I think:

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

 

Very much so. A link to it was provided in the article I posted above. There is a need for SWAT teams unfortunately serving warrants should not be one of their primary functions.

 

[Chromebolt]

Rosco and Scotty:

 

I also believe this quote say a lot; "home grown terrorists with badges".

[rongee]

When Euro-fascism comes to America, if it hasn't already, it will come in the form of SWAT. Same tactics, a knock (if you're lucky) on the door in the night, same black uniforms, same shaped helmets (those Germans had a hell of a good design, didn't they?). Just add the black, red and white arm band and we've got a real close match. As PhilOhio has pointed out, once you develop a SWAT team, you have to find something or someone to use it on. It's like giving a guy a stick. At some point, he's going to have to hit somebody with it.

 

Seems to me SWAT got its lift off right here in Los Angeles. Developed by our beloved Chief of Police Daryl Gates in 1967 and first used effectively against the SLA in 1974. According to the Wikipedia article, since they came up against the "heavily armed SLA" (after all, Cinque did have a couple of M1 carbines), SWAT was subsequently issued body armor and full auto weapons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAT Add to that a couple of really neat armored vehciles with battering rams and we're ready to party. Too bad that Daryl never really got to kick off Operation Hammer, wherein he was going to take those rams down to South Central and visit some crack houses. Now there was a legitimate use of SWAT. http://www.answers.com/topic/operation-hammer-1987

 

Chromebolt asks how to serve a search warrant without the use of SWAT. Here's how it would have been done in the '50's and 60's. Take two officers, knock on the door, serve the warrant on whoever opens it, and deal with the situation as it develops. That's what you get paid for. These days with body armor, hi-cap side arms, a couple of different types of batons, instant communication, Mace, wouldn't you say the officers might have an edge over the people inside? Is it really necessary to have 20 testosterone driven hot-heads to take down a crack house? Or maybe a 40 year old black woman waving a kitchen knife (not SWAT related but a good example of excessive police violence and one which always comes to my mind when I hear about excessive use of force. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-...TICLE_ID=27461)?

Edited January 14, 2008 by rongee

[PhilOhio]

Rosco and Scotty:

 

I also believe this quote say a lot; "home grown terrorists with badges".

 

Yes it does say a lot, but not what you imply, which is that I am being unreasonable and grossly unfair with the accusation. That is precisely what quite a few of these guys are. P-R-E-C-I-S-E-L-Y. We don't need that kind, any more than we need the ones with towels wrapped around their heads. And the home grown, badged variety poisons the environment for all the hard working, decent, self-sacrificing cops who actually do try to make the world safer for all of us; that's 98% of them, in my opinion. Door busting thugs ain't that.

 

Chromebolt, I guess it's understandable that you didn't want to give "yes" or "no" answers to the two clear cut questions I posed. But we can guess.

 

Scotty,

 

Yes, that map says a lot. Makes it pretty hard for SWAT team apologists to charge that unreasonable armchair quarterbacks are just picking on them.

 

I see all sorts of bad things happening within the society, signs of serious deterioration. Many of them, we can probably do little or nothing about, except by working one-on-one and trying to set a good example. But some, we could do something about, if the people who claim to represent us would do so. Curtailing all this misuse of SWAT teams is one such thing.

 

Having people within the LE community hotly defending the disgraceful status quo, or trying to explain it away, is not the place to start.

 

When I opened our Toledo, OH, newspaper this morning, there were four articulate letters to the editor, commenting on the recent Lima SWAT shooting. They covered just about all the observations posted by board members. Not one writer defended SWAT team and Lima PD performance. And they echoed our posts, commenting on the phenomenon nationwide. So at least a lot of people are beginning to think about it and demand action, even out here in the sleepy Midwest. We are about as far as you could get, from the worst abuses in Northeast and Far West urban environments. This whole thing has been allowed to get far too far out of hand.

 

[RoscoeTurner]

Rosco and Scotty:

 

I also believe this quote say a lot; "home grown terrorists with badges".

 

Actually the term I hear most often here is "Bullies with badges" when referring to SWAT teams. Like most people I have great respect for law enforcement with the exception of those who let the power go to their heads. There are great people whose profession is law enforcement unfortunately a few slip through the crack whose only reason for being there is the power given to them over everyone else. Those are the ones that make the true professionals look bad.

Edited January 14, 2008 by RoscoeTurner