Abuse of SWAT in USA

[Atomoa]

If police officers can't wear helmets because it scares some people

Helmets = tanks, assualt rifles, military gear, aggressive military tactics in urban civilian settings

Scares some people = kill/hurt innocents/trample on basic rights/peoples enjoyability of a military free society

Why do we as a society have to suffer the consequences of militarized, overused, aggressive-action police force under falling crime rates instead of addressing the root of the problem (again crime is low and drastically lower that before)

Suddenly I am the bad guy for saying we need mental health funding instead of assault rifles. My way you get less militarized police AND less dead police or @ risk police. Your military fetish requirements up the ante.

[Captain Awesome]

Your military fetish requirements up the ante.

It's a guy thing, you won't understand :)

Seriously though, helmets are elements of basic safety. If police officers don't deserve safety and should not be wearing them cause it hurts feelings of some people, why should firemen? Screw their safety.

Suddenly I am the bad guy for saying we need mental health funding instead of assault rifles.

I never said that. They don't cancel each other out, you know.

[Smurf]

Atomoa wrote:

The police did poor surveillance or ignored surveillance all together. There were toys in the yard. This was not a Meth lab. This was over the sale of 25 dollars work of meth. It's the drugs dealers fault that a grenade landed in a crib? Nice one. Why was a grenade thrown - at all? A grenade.

You do realize it was a flashbang grenade, not a military type grenade. If it had been a real "grenade" there would be nothing left of the room. It was still a bad thing to happen, but you also have to realize that when people deal in drugs bad things happen. Flashbang grenades are very common because they make the situation safer for everyone involved by disorientating the people targeted. Police have to do things to hopefully lessen the chance of harm to everyone involved.

Back in the 80's I worked with a fellow who was a regular marijuana user. He had a search warrant served and his house torn apart because he was seen hanging with known drug dealers. If you want to be associated with that type of thing, even if you are not part of it, expect trouble.

I was talking to a fellow while waiting at a shop in Spokane Washington last weekend. He was telling me about his cousin, a wannabe biker who came up to Canada to a large bike meet. While there he associated with some Hells Angels. On the way home the US border guards stripped his bike and left it in pieces. He ended up calling a friend and hauling it home in a truck to put it back together again. The RCMP were monitoring the Hells Angels and got pictures of him, ID'D him and sent it to the border. Even association is enough to get you in a lot of trouble and anyone that doesn't realize that had better wake up.

Police are going to protect themselves as much as possible as they should when dealing with the unknown. The world is changing fast out there, just ask the Moncton RCMP. The police have to keep up. In fact staying ahead would be a good thing.

[Rosieodonell]

Lakevixen,

nothing i said there was wrong. I was living in abby at the time as well.... (go Yale Lions!) and my father was speaking to people on the force as well. They didn't realize it was a kids birthday party at the time. The dog did get shot.

other points, The flashbang grenade can do lots of damage if it goes off in close proximity to a person so the child could have been seriously hurt. But that situation was less of a swat issue and more of bad police training and poor judgement. So many raids a conducted and done correctly and oyu never hear about them.

[Smurf]

That is one of the big problems, people jump on every little thing and seem to forget the thousands of good things, good results that happen. With all the actions that go on there will always be mistakes and bad turnouts but that does not mean the whole system is bad or going to hell. It means humans are involved and with that many happenings there are going to be problems. Are there problems with training, recruiting or whatever I truly don't know, but I do believe that most RCMP are there to do a good honest job, protecting the public, themselves and enforcing our laws as they are supposed to.

Yes Rosieodonell the flashbang grenades can be very dangerous at close range but I was just pointing out they are not a "grenade" that we usually think of. They are actually used to prevent harm to everyone involved not cause it. But accidents do happen the same as driving down the street in your car. One bad incident does not mean the police were at fault or that they should stop using them. These supposedly are not upright citizens that they are dealing with and therefore common sense dictates that certain precautions must be taken.

[Atomoa]

You do realize it was a flashbang grenade, not a military type grenade. If it had been a real "grenade" there would be nothing left of the room. It was still a bad thing to happen, but you also have to realize that when people deal in drugs bad things happen. Flashbang grenades are very common because they make the situation safer for everyone involved by disorientating the people targeted. Police have to do things to hopefully lessen the chance of harm to everyone involved.

Back in the 80's I worked with a fellow who was a regular marijuana user. He had a search warrant served and his house torn apart because he was seen hanging with known drug dealers. If you want to be associated with that type of thing, even if you are not part of it, expect trouble.

Smurf. I cant even begin on this one. Just wow.

1. Yes I know it was a flash bang. The baby is still disfigured.

2.. They served the warrant at 3am.

3. People deal in drugs - bad things happen? That is utter bull. At the hands of the police? They are there to apparently help save someone from 50 dollars worth of meth and now a baby is messed up. For life.

4. The drug war allowed the police to trample on rights and serve no knock warrants. No knock warrants ARE the reason this happens. If they knocked, then this wouldnt have happened.

- If the police use over aggressive tactics (like throwing grenades into windows where they have no idea who is inside) to serve warrants to "search" (not confirmed) for small personal amount of drugs - then bad things happen.

- If you use meth you may develop a addiction. This is what the SWAT team is tying to prevent (apparently). Preventing a suspected (not confirmed) potential addiction by using assault rifles and grenades. Grenades don't appear in cribs because you smoke meth.

http://rt.com/usa/163400-baby-burned-sw ... stigation/

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/knock-and-announce_rule

Knock-and-announce rule: an overview

Under the common law knock-and-announce rule, a police officer executing a search warrant generally must not immediately force his or her way into a residence. Instead, he or she must first knock, identify himself or herself and his or her intent, and wait a reasonable amount of time for the occupants to let him or her into the residence. The Supreme Court has held that the knock-and-announce rule forms part of a judge's inquiry into the reasonableness of a search under the Fourth Amendment. See Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995).

The Supreme Court identified several reasons supporting the rule in Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006). These include preventing accidental injuries to officers and occupants, limiting property damage, and protecting occupants' privacy and dignity. This rule, however, does not protect occupants from government seizure of their property. Accordingly, although the exclusionary rule may apply to some police violations of the rule, it does not apply to all.

A police officer is not required to knock and announce if doing so would be unreasonable, e.g. if there is a risk of injury to the police officer executing the search warrant or a risk of the occupants destroying the sought-after evidence between the police officer's knock and his or her entry. The applicability of this exception is determined on a case-by-case basis. For example, in Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 358 (1997), the Supreme Court held that there is no blanket exception to the knock-and-announce rule for searches in felony drug cases. Officers may, however, seek a "no-knock" warrant in advance if they suspect that a no-knock entry will be justified when they serve the warrant.

In practice, over the past decade, police officers have increasingly relied on no-knock warrants, particularly in drug cases and especially in major cities. There has been a corresponding increase in the number of innocent persons accidentally injured or killed by police officers executing no-knock warrants.

50 dollars worth of meth = flashbang into a babies crib.

[Smurf]

Actually 3 AM is the perfect time because people are sleeping, like the case of the escapees in Quebec. No resistance.

3. People deal in drugs - bad things happen? That is utter bull.

Maybe you should ask the Bacon brothers about that or are they around to ask. Anything associated with drugs can go bad.
Not usually, but it can. In many cases the people involved are not law abiding citizens, in fact they are law breakers of one kind or another. When you walk up to a door you never know what or who is on the other side. Much better to be safe than sorry. If people don't want these things to happen, don't get involved in that kind of activity in any way. If you do it is your decision and your responsibility. Something similar to drinking and driving.

In 99% of the cases I'm with the police.

[Liquidnails]

Give police tanks machine guns and grenade launchers and they're gonna need a war to fight.

That war is the war on drugs, which is hopefully on it's way out.

[maryjane48]

and my father was speaking to people on the force as well. They didn't realize it was a kids birthday party at the time. The dog did get shot

and that explains the discipline against two of the fools how? and why they changed how they deal with weed offenders ? it was sloppy survelience that started the ball rolling and a need to be gi joe

[cutter7]

Speaking as a child of an officer that waited at home for his father who risked his life everyday. I welcome the idea of officers in special protection gear, knocking on a door where a possible suspect could be armed. So a little overkill in the prevention department means my dad would come home at night.

Yup sign me up for more use of swat!

Funny stuff right there,, your dads job is not even on the top ten most dangerous jobs in canada.. you know what job is listed as more dangerous? a taxi driver.

If his job really was that dangerous the numbers showing deaths or dismemberment would show it. they do not.

you and other police supporters want people to believe in your "what if" or "could happen" scenarios..

Truth is they have safety equipment, follow protocol that keeps them safe regardless of public endangerment and are well paid to do a job that rarely puts their lives in danger in comparison to, loggers , fishermen, taxi drivers etc

[Smurf]

You are exactly right cutter7 and a large part of the reason for those stats is swat teams, 3am raids, flashbang grenades and the other equipment they use. If they just went knocking on doors in regular uniform etc. there would be a lot more problems. Like any other hazardous job it can be made safe by the use of proper man power, equipment etc.. When I worked on live electrical equipment, especially high voltage it was extremely dangerous, but if I used the proper equipment and followed all the proper procedures it was actually very safe. One deviation could immediately cost your life with no chance for recovery. Similar to a shotgun blast coming through a door. I believe that happened in Quebec a couple of years ago.

[Smurf]

Rosieodonell do you or your father feel that things have changed since he was in the force? If so, do you think that it requires a different mindset that a number of years ago? Not saying everything they are doing is right, just thinking that maybe many of the changes are necessary for their safety.

[LoneWolf_53]

Suddenly I am the bad guy for saying we need mental health funding instead of assault rifles. My way you get less militarized police AND less dead police or @ risk police. Your military fetish requirements up the ante.

What an utterly stupid stance. More mental health funding because naturally all the drug dealers are mentally challenged, so throwing money at them instead of law enforcement will make everything peachy.

Ridiculous!

Rosieodonell do you or your father feel that things have changed since he was in the force? If so, do you think that it requires a different mindset that a number of years ago? Not saying everything they are doing is right, just thinking that maybe many of the changes are necessary for their safety.

You really need to ask that question?

Is it necessary to remind you of all the targeted shootings that are common place these days as drug dealers fight over turf?

Remember the Grand?

Such things were not common place a few decades back, not to the degree that they are now, at least not unless you happen to live in Chicago and knew Al Capone.

When parents of young children take it upon themselves to be drug peddlers, it's they who are responsible for putting their children in harms way, if not from a police raid, then from competing gangs/dealers, who pose more of a threat than police ever will.

Most certainly today requires a different approach to law enforcement than days gone by.

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

In addressing a prior post pertaining to the pitbull being shot, well let's think about this for just a second, police raid on a known drug dealers residence, upon entry an officer is engaged by an attack breed of dog, a breed that even under normal circumstances the larger majority of citizens are at the very least skeptical of, in most cases afraid of, so as an officer what do I do? Darn right you shoot the thing dead. Humans come before dogs and just as with the kids, the dealers knew full well that their life choices could adversely affect everyone and thing in that household.

Let's be reasonable here people and direct any blame to where it rightfully belongs, and that's the criminals.

[cutter7]

Has anyone one every heard of a gun fight between drug dealers and police in canada? I sure haven't. most of them don't want interaction of any kind with police much less a gun fight.

Police are prepared for worst case scenarios and treat each drug entry as such.. and that is what puts the public at risk.

Reality is, if anyone really wanted to harm a police officer , there is not much that will stop it as witnessed in mayerthorpe and moncton.

[Smurf]

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.