Abuse of SWAT in USA

[Smurf]

I am willing to bet that not one of the people speaking up against this would even consider doing these supposedly "low risk" jobs. I know for sure they wouldn't do it without taking most of, if not all of the precautions taken currently. If they did not take the necessary precautions and participated in many of these actions I believe they would have a short life expectancy. The people who do these jobs are often not your regular officers, but specially trained for these situations and there is good reason for that. Like many other jobs police officers are becoming more and more specialized at what they do.

[LoneWolf_53]

Cutter did you ever stop to think that the reason they don't want to fight with the police is that the police come prepared. If they were ill prepared there would probably be a lot more problems. The second they get lax the trouble is there as you pointed out.

That assessment is spot on.

[Smurf]

Nice to agree with you on something LW.

[JLives]

Yet another accountability loophole.

Massachusetts SWAT teams claim they’re private corporations, immune from open records laws
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- ... ords-laws/

Some of these LECs have also apparently incorporated as 501(c)(3) organizations. And it’s here that we run into problems. According to the ACLU, the LECs are claiming that the 501(c)(3) status means that they’re private corporations, not government agencies. And therefore, they say they’re immune from open records requests. Let’s be clear. These agencies oversee police activities. They employ cops who carry guns, wear badges, collect paychecks provided by taxpayers and have the power to detain, arrest, injure and kill. They operate SWAT teams, which conduct raids on private residences. And yet they say that because they’ve incorporated, they’re immune to Massachusetts open records laws. The state’s residents aren’t permitted to know how often the SWAT teams are used, what they’re used for, what sort of training they get or who they’re primarily used against.

[Atomoa]

If they just went knocking on doors in regular uniform etc. there would be a lot more problems.

You mean, they would have trouble grabbing evidence (drugs) before it could be flushed down the toilet?

This is the PRIMARY reason no knock warrants are allowed. This is why people rights were suspended - to get drugs.

You are suggesting they do it "to be safe" , which is nonsense. You don't storm the gate and scare he hell out of people when you don't know what's inside and you are "fishing" with a warrant "to be safe about it". 80% of the time that is the case when SWAT is used. Fishing trip.

The police don't like 'privacy rights" or "warrants" when they are charged with fighting a unwinnable war. Hence the bust down the door loophole. You can't see whats in my wife's panty drawer unless you come in guns blazing at 3am.

Remember this is all to prevent a possible addiction. There is no hostage crisis. No gun to anyone head. (when I agree with SWAT) This is to potentially stop (user may buy drugs somewhere else) a possible addiction (user may not be addict or have addiction under control) by using brute, violent force on the "supply" side of things (supply and DEMAND ring a bell?), which is the worse way of trying to fight the war. It's ludicrous.

The problems occur BECAUSE of no-knock warrants. Misunderstandings, trigger happy SWAT, people being shot 70 times because they have a remote control in their hand when the police barge in the house (true story).

This is the very reason the military should not and legally cannot operate in civilian settings. Its brute force.

Your conclusions are incorrect Smurf. Your summations and others like it have lead to more accidents, not prevented them.

[Atomoa]

I am willing to bet that not one of the people speaking up against this would even consider doing these supposedly "low risk" jobs.

Translation = "if you're not doing this job I think you are weaker/more cowardly than they are therefore your opinion is invalid"

I think you have a big nose Smurf, so your your opinion is invalid as well?

(joking but I do not get your debating point here? name calling?)

They are paid well and get carde blanche from a good chunk of society. Oh-whoa-is-me. Voluntary, highly compensated risk. FYI it would have been a first career choice for me if it not for the drug war. I wouldn't have signed up if masturbation was outlawed either - no matter how much I want to help people.

[Smurf]

Atomoa wrote:

You mean, they would have trouble grabbing evidence (drugs) before it could be flushed down the toilet?

This is the PRIMARY reason no knock warrants are allowed. This is why people rights were suspended - to get drugs.

You are suggesting they do it "to be safe" , which is nonsense. You don't storm the gate and scare he hell out of people when you don't know what's inside and you are "fishing" with a warrant "to be safe about it". 80% of the time that is the case when SWAT is used. Fishing trip.

The police don't like 'privacy rights" or "warrants" when they are charged with fighting a unwinnable war. Hence the bust down the door loophole. You can't see whats in my wife's panty drawer unless you come in guns blazing at 3am.

Remember this is all to prevent a possible addiction. There is no hostage crisis. No gun to anyone head. (when I agree with SWAT) This is to potentially stop (user may buy drugs somewhere else) a possible addiction (user may not be addict or have addiction under control) by using brute, violent force on the "supply" side of things (supply and DEMAND ring a bell?), which is the worse way of trying to fight the war. It's ludicrous.

The problems occur BECAUSE of no-knock warrants. Misunderstandings, trigger happy SWAT, people being shot 70 times because they have a remote control in their hand when the police barge in the house (true story).

This is the very reason the military should not and legally cannot operate in civilian settings. Its brute force.

Your conclusions are incorrect Smurf. Your summations and others like it have lead to more accidents, not prevented them

In my opinion "your conclusions are incorrect Atomoa" and in my opinion, my opinions are as good as yours and probably as informed.

How do the police ever know whether or not there is a gun or weapon on the other side of the door and someone willing to use it. I don't care if it's a drug bust, an arrest warrant or looking for three escaped prisoners in Quebec, the police should never ever put themselves in any unnecessary danger of any type when there is an alternative. Even the people with drugs are breaking our laws and therefore the police have every right to go after them and to fully protect themselves while doing it. That is my opinion. If you break the law you suffer the consequences.

[Smurf]

Smurf wrote:
I am willing to bet that not one of the people speaking up against this would even consider doing these supposedly "low risk" jobs.

Atomoa wrote:

Translation = "if you're not doing this job I think you are weaker/more cowardly than they are therefore your opinion is invalid"

I think you have a big nose Smurf, so your your opinion is invalid as well?

(joking but I do not get your debating point here? name calling?)

They are paid well and get carde blanche from a good chunk of society. Oh-whoa-is-me. Voluntary, highly compensated risk. FYI it would have been a first career choice for me if it not for the drug war. I wouldn't have signed up if masturbation was outlawed either - no matter how much I want to help people.

Nope my translation and I wrote it is:

"You probably would not want to do this job because you know the dangers and are not interested in assuming them even though you say they are "low risk" " any more than I am.

But don't expect someone else to risk their lives anymore than absolutely necessary just because they are willing to do the job. Nothing about being weaker/more cowardly whatsoever. I never think someone is weak or cowardly because they don't want to do something. There are lots of things I won't do and lots extremely dangerous things I have done because I wanted to and was willing to assume the risk. I have a friend who is definitely not weak or a coward but he is scared of heights, that does not make him a coward, just not willing/able to handle high places.. I cannot understand anyone being scared of heights, but that is me. It definitely does not make me any stronger than someone who can't handle them.

Since when does being high paid mean you have to take any unnecessary risks. You might be willing to accept more risks that others but not unnecessary ones like knocking on a door when there could be an unknown danger inside. Even the most daring of people seldom take unnecessary risks, calculated/managed risks, yes that is the job.

[goatboy]

You mean, they would have trouble grabbing evidence (drugs) before it could be flushed down the toilet?

This is the PRIMARY reason no knock warrants are allowed. This is why people rights were suspended - to get drugs.

You are suggesting they do it "to be safe" , which is nonsense. You don't storm the gate and scare he hell out of people when you don't know what's inside and you are "fishing" with a warrant "to be safe about it". 80% of the time that is the case when SWAT is used. Fishing trip.

The police don't like 'privacy rights" or "warrants" when they are charged with fighting a unwinnable war. Hence the bust down the door loophole. You can't see whats in my wife's panty drawer unless you come in guns blazing at 3am.

Remember this is all to prevent a possible addiction. There is no hostage crisis. No gun to anyone head. (when I agree with SWAT) This is to potentially stop (user may buy drugs somewhere else) a possible addiction (user may not be addict or have addiction under control) by using brute, violent force on the "supply" side of things (supply and DEMAND ring a bell?), which is the worse way of trying to fight the war. It's ludicrous.

The problems occur BECAUSE of no-knock warrants. Misunderstandings, trigger happy SWAT, people being shot 70 times because they have a remote control in their hand when the police barge in the house (true story).

This is the very reason the military should not and legally cannot operate in civilian settings. Its brute force.

Your conclusions are incorrect Smurf. Your summations and others like it have lead to more accidents, not prevented them.

Of course, all that could be avoided if the subject of the warrant had chosen to not break the law. Regardless of whether you believe the law is right, it's still the law and they chose to break it. Why no condemnation of the user/ dealer?

[cutter7]

Cutter did you ever stop to think that the reason they don't want to fight with the police is that the police come prepared. If they were ill prepared there would probably be a lot more problems. The second they get lax the trouble is there as you pointed out.

Wrong. In canada the penalties for drug dealing are not as harsh as other countries. Your life is not over just because you sell a restricted drug.

In the states the penalties are much harsher and with the 3 strike rule your life is basically over,, hence the fight or flight mentality.

how do you explain the fact that being a cop in the states is way more dangerous than in canada? The police are way more aggressive down there than here.

[Smurf]

I believe if you check the criminals in the US are away more aggressive and there are guns everywhere. Down there you can almost be positive that most homes you enter have guns. Even in the RV parks where we stay, seniors, almost every American trailer has at least one gun it it. At the carving club I belong to, 120 plus of us, most of the time, almost all the Americans there carry "guns" in their trailer. We know a number of women in their 60's/70's that carry guns in their purses when they are shopping etc.. Why would the police not be extremely careful under those circumstances. I know I certainly would. It is worthy to note the number of the larger drug busts in Canada that also involve illegal guns.

We have even been told to be very careful if we are boondocking, because criminals will go after Canadian travelers knowing they are almost guaranteed we are not armed.

[cutter7]

yep, americans love their guns, canadian gangs can easily get guns, yet gangs in canada do not attack police.

A drug charge while serious is nothing compared to attacking one of our rcmp.

[Smurf]

Do you think it is because we are being pro-active instead of re-active. We are being prepared at least to the level necessary. maybe if we weren't prepared and gave them more opportunity they would attack. We don't want to find out do we.

[goatboy]

yep, americans love their guns, canadian gangs can easily get guns, yet gangs in canada do not attack police.

A drug charge while serious is nothing compared to attacking one of our rcmp.

Insane!

Chicago's police superintendent lashed out at what he called lax state and federal gun laws after a violent Fourth of July weekend that saw 11 deaths in dozens of shooting incidents in a city already known for frequent shootings.
"There's a greater sanction for the gang members to lose that firearm from their gang than there is to go to jail" for illegal gun possession, Chicago police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said after reciting the criminal histories of several of the suspects in this weekend's violence.
Among the suspects: a man wanted in connection with a murder who has 21 prior arrests.
The incidents include eight times in which police fired guns at suspects or were fired on, McCarthy told reporters. In two of those incidents, police shot and killed the suspects, both of whom were 16.
McCarthy said the violence unraveled a string of successes by police in suppressing gun violence this year. The city saw 24 shooting incidents on Sunday alone, he said, although three of them may have been self-inflicted.
Reports: Dozens shot in Chicago
In 2013, 12 people died and 75 were injured during the four-day Independence Day holiday, according to CNN affiliate WLS.
The holiday shootings follow a week in which Chicago had 52 shooting incidents, according to Police Department statistics. This year, as of June 29, Chicago police had recorded 880 shooting incidents, an average of nearly five a day.
McCarthy said police will continue a summer program to flood high-violence areas with police, but he said that without stronger gun laws, police will continue to face an uphill battle.
"There's too many guns coming in and too little punishment going out," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/07/justice/chicago-shootings/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[Atomoa]

Michael Brown shooting: The police's military-like response to Missouri riots

Rising militarization of police in U.S. proves deadly and costly

The militarization of state and local police forces — now outfitted with the armoured vehicles, battering rams and flashbang grenades once reserved for troops — is a rising concern in the U.S. and a trend that experts suspect is seeping north of the border.

The precipitous rise in the use of military tactics and equipment in the U.S. is startling.Where once only a portion of cities had paramilitary units such as SWAT teams, now it's the majority. Studies by Peter Kraska, a professor and chair of graduate studies in the school of justice studies at Eastern Kentucky University, show that between the mid-1980s and late 1990s, the percentage of cities of 50,000 or more, like St. Louis, with a paramilitary unit almost doubled to 89 per cent.

Smaller cities, those serving 25-50,000 people, saw an even greater jump – a quadrupling from 20 per cent to 80 per cent.

"These trends would mean little if these teams were relatively inactive," Kraska wrote in one of his studies in 2007. "This was not the case." Once local police forces are trained and equipped in the ways of the military, they're keen to use it. There's been a 1,400 per cent increase in police paramilitary deployments between 1980 and 2000,

...has crime risen 1400% since the 1980's? Hardly.

In fact, it's the U.S. war on drugs (the phrase itself evokes the battlefield) that led local police forces down the militarized path. The federal government has not only doled out free or cheap surplus military gear so state and local forces can fight drug crimes, it has also handed out grants to help them buy heavy weaponry. Fears of terrorism fuelled even more interest in bulking up local police officers, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan provided surplus machinery and equipment that the federal government was keen to sell or clear out of their warehouses.

Why are war spoils being used on public streets in civilian settings?

ACLU examined more than 800 SWAT deployments in 2011-2012 and found that most of those deployments, 79 per cent, were to search homes, largely in drug probes.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/michael-br ... -1.2735588

*cough*