namelesstavern.net

Narrock wrote:So about 40 people Nationwide die per year because of a botched police raid? Considering we're a nation of over 300 million people... that's not a bad statistic at all.

I find this to be the most disturbing thing in this thread. In my opinion the death even a single innocent person is far too many for any amount of time.

That's not really pragmatic, Tuggan. There are a lot of bad people, as you should know better than anyone from where you live, so that statistic doesn't bother me as much as the concept of police using gestapo tactics on nonviolent warrants.

The violent offenders? The rapists, murderers, and gang punks? Bring in the car and load up the SS. If a few of them die, no sweat.

Lueyen wrote:Some of the statements the author of the article makes seem to lean toward complete removal of all military style tactics and weapons. I'm pretty sure judges can place stipulations to some degree on how an issued warrant is executed, perhaps the answer is to promote or build in if it's not there already more detailed aspects of warrant execution.

Judges can not stipulate how laws are executed (hense the executive branch which Police fall under) and warrants are simply orders to appear in court, so you are technically "innocent" even with an outstanding warrant until proven guilty in court. Therefor you can't have "detailed" warrants stating this guy needs SWAT and that one does not as you would have to "know" that one person is guilty and another is not before their day in court. Does that make sense? It's early and I'm still low on coffee

As for the point of the author; I don't believe he was advocating complete removal of the style and tactics, he went before Congress to press the issue of donating or very cheaply selling military weapons and equipment to our Nations police forces. The thinking there (and it's a guess) is that if you have an abundance of weapons and armor, you will find a way to use it as apposed to having the Police department propose a bond or funding request for "tanks, rams and M16s" to their local populace.

Eziekial wrote:Judges can not stipulate how laws are executed (hense the executive branch which Police fall under) and warrants are simply orders to appear in court, so you are technically "innocent" even with an outstanding warrant until proven guilty in court. Therefor you can't have "detailed" warrants stating this guy needs SWAT and that one does not as you would have to "know" that one person is guilty and another is not before their day in court. Does that make sense? It's early and I'm still low on coffee

Unofficially the judge could ask the intended method of execution, and grant or refuse a warrant based on that, but I see your point. Having never been served with a warrant, I'm not to familiar with the contents, and not really interested in going through the process for the opportunity at a closer look . It sounds as if changing the process on an official level there would be fairly major and most likely violate separation of powers provisions in state constitutions.

Eziekial wrote:As for the point of the author; I don't believe he was advocating complete removal of the style and tactics, he went before Congress to press the issue of donating or very cheaply selling military weapons and equipment to our Nations police forces. The thinking there (and it's a guess) is that if you have an abundance of weapons and armor, you will find a way to use it as apposed to having the Police department propose a bond or funding request for "tanks, rams and M16s" to their local populace.

It’s time we stopped the war talk, the military tactics, and the military gear.

This last statement is the one that bugged me the most. Now obviously the article does conceded the use of SWAT is in some cases necessary, and I'm not trying to take this one sentence out of context. It's placement at the end in basically a conclusionary statement isn't talking about reducing or curtailing, but eliminating. Obviously over abundance of equipment and SWAT forces is a catalyst to the problem, but I feel it's only a catalyst due to lack of restrictions on what it can be used for. I submit that simply reducing the available equipment and training won't really fix the problem. It really won't matter if police raiding a home are carrying fully automatic military fire arms or standard issue shot guns and pistols, nor if they are experts at forced entry or simply good at kicking down a door. In the end unless there are lawful restrictions on the use of no-knock warrants, non violent offenders or innocent people who represent no real threat are in the exact same situation. Reducing training and equipment to a virtual non existence will however change the situation when it comes to situations that would warrant the use of SWAT style tactics and gear.

While I'm in general agreement with the author, I do have concerns as to what exactly he is promoting, or what actions congress may take. I guess I'm more in favor of directly restricting the use of tactics and equipment in situations where common sense dictates that it is over kill, rather then trying to influence it by proxy.

Congress can not direct the actions of state police. They have no control over the policy or SOP in that area. They DO have control over the appropriation of excess military weapons and equipment so the author was speaking to what was possible action for his audience. I would guess that once the supply was cut off, the next course would be to go in front of state and municipal police forces to discuss changes in policy at the local level. I seriously doubt anyone would get far in front of a mayor or governor asking to tone down actions when they have trucks of military equipment waiting to be used parked outside. Things are a bit different when you have to go out and buy the equipment first and ask your constituents to open their wallets for a new ram tank.

As an example, one of my reservists is a Sargent for Boynton Beach and heads up the SWAT team and is their lead instructor. We started talking about SWAT and mentioned that they have some "pretty intense equipment" that was given to them through a program from DoD. He said that once they got the first shipment of "toys" as he called it, interest in SWAT tripled. He also joked about going on routine patrols with night-vision goggles to catch speeders in that creepy cop sort of way. Don't get me wrong, he's a great person and I feel honored to have him serve in our armed forces and our police department. I just feel things would be very different if Boyton Beach had to actually pay the 8k or so for each set of night-vision goggles and if they would be so willing to let cops on routine patrol check them out to get a couple extra speeding tickets.

Eziekial wrote:Congress can not direct the actions of state police. They have no control over the policy or SOP in that area. They DO have control over the appropriation of excess military weapons and equipment so the author was speaking to what was possible action for his audience.

Good point, however he only advocated one possible action when there are other options, and options that don't remove the equipment from those officers that would put them to just use.

Congress could limit the appropriations, or could even qualify the level of appropriations based on certain criteria (such as the number of mistaken home invasions). How about your SWAT team loses it's equipment appropriations next year if it hits the wrong house by mistake?

Congress could even require departments pay a certain amount for the equipment so that it wasn't a free for all type scenario, even further the funds from this could be used to pay for damages to property when the police are in the wrong.

These sorts of actions would accomplish the same goals without removing equipment from those who have a genuine need for it in keeping themselves safe and protecting the public.

As a side note part of the reason I don't want to see the program completely gone is that it's efficient use of tax payer money, something not often found in government. Rather then have all of the equipment destroyed or sitting in a warehouse, re-use both ensures the already paid for equipment gets a second life, and reduces the costs of operation of police departments.

Like I said I'm inclined to agree that there is a catalyst there that needs to be reigned in, but my concern is about the side effects of destroying the whole program.

Tuggan wrote:

Narrock wrote:So about 40 people Nationwide die per year because of a botched police raid? Considering we're a nation of over 300 million people... that's not a bad statistic at all.

I find this to be the most disturbing thing in this thread. In my opinion the death even a single innocent person is far too many for any amount of time.

What is so disturbing? Who said it was innocent people dying in the botched raids?

Arlos wrote:Prohibition was a spectacularly bad idea when we tried it with Alcohol. It just drove it underground and gave rise to organized criminal groups who handled smuggling and distribution, and made gazillions. That was the Mafia.

Why anyone thought it would work any better with any other intoxicant that the populace actually still wants to use, I have no idea. All it's done is give rise to organized criminal groups who handle smuggling and distribution, and make even more gazillions since production is often even cheaper than making booze. These are the modern drug cartels, who are worse than the mafia ever was, pretty much.

It has been shown time and time again that criminalization + enforcement gets you nowhere. If you really want to make a dent in the problem you need to focus your efforts on education support and treatment. It is manifestly obvious the current method doesn't work, and has led to the police militarization as well as the escalation of armaments among the drug gangs as well. It's time to do away with the failed methods of the past, and try something new.

-Arlos

some of americas richest families started running booze. Joe Kennedy ring a bell?

btw, dope will never become legal because there is more profit to be made from it while it is illegal.