Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America

The Cato Institute ^ | July 16, 2006 | Radley Balko

[rbalko]

Paper on America's love affair with the SWAT team and "dynamic entry" raids.

See scary accompanying map of botched no-knocks and other SWAT-style raids.

[FreedomPoster]

>>A minimum of laws, which is a worthy goal.

Indeed it it. See the first quote on my profile page.

[FreedomPoster]

Here, you need the animated gif version of that (different captions, but same idea):

[DariusBane]

I will, and thanks for the great suggestion!

[oneolcop]

In answer to your mostly retorical question: No. I left California, mainly because the battle was fought and lost (by our side). You are living in one of the outer rings of the inferno. If you choose to stay, FIGHT for what you stand for. If you and others like you don't win, at least you will have tried so your place will not be "with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat".

[Titan Magroyne]

Thankee kindly!

[af_vet_rr]

No, but I have driven in New Mexico, where if you have Texas plates, it is best to strictly obey all traffic laws, especially when you leave the southeast corner of the state, known as Little Texas.

Reminds me of this place in Northeastern Oklahoma - Big Cabin, sits at the intersection of a highway and turnpike. I didn't go exploring, but looked like a few gas stations/truckstops, an auto mechanic shop or two, a shipping company and an Indian smoke shop.

Before you get to Big Cabin, somebody, I believe the truckstop owner, has placed 18 wheeler trailers up and down the highway with huge banners saying "speed trap ahead" and these things are lit up at night.

The reason why - the "town" of Big Cabin drops the speed limit very rapidly towards the bottom of a hill (which is dangerous as hell since you're having to hit your brakes and praying nobody rear-ends you). They could easily drop the limit well before the hill, but they choose not to.

A local at the truckstop told me that the state is suing Big Cabin because apparently they'e brought in millions of dollars from speeding tickets, and that numerous people and companies have filed complaints with the state over this. Sounded like this itty-bitty town's majority of income comes from the speed trap and it did - apparently over 70% of their revenue is from speeding tickets.

Anytime law enforcement goes hand-in-hand with revenue generation for a government like this, there is going to be abuse.

[The KG9 Kid]

Looking at the map provided at the source, it appears that Nevada and Wyoming generally haven't got a problem with cowboy tactical cops and mistaken 'No-knock' raids.

[Ken H]

I agree that drugs should be legalized, but only after society and the courts stop letting people off of the hook for criminal activity committed while they were stoned.

What is your rationale for wanting drugs legalized?

[Sam Cree]

"Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." - Ayn Rand, 'Atlas Shrugged' 1957"

Nice dialogue. That is the situation we now have - I'm not so sure that it was deliberate, perhaps just being more the natural result of the procession of government, as Jefferson famously noted, but we've gotten there all the same. So many laws that it's not possible to know them all, or to avoid transgressing them all, while it is possible to be under suspicion of any number of transgressions at any moment in time.

I'd love for all our legislative bodies to concentrate on nothing but repealing laws for a change, for several years probably, and quit adding more and more every session they hold. It would make a great platform for a candidate, but I'm not convinced it would play well with the modern citizenry. Of either party.

[Scotsman will be Free]

I didn't find the statistics that showed the win/loss ratio of fights that cops get into. Try again.

[Scotsman will be Free]

Let's be honest. Libertarians are wannabe anarchists.

[Scotsman will be Free]

If you or anyone else wants to fry your brains out, have at it. Our society worked just fine prior to prohibition of drugs.

[FreedomCalls]

I didn't find the statistics that showed the win/loss ratio of fights that cops get into. Try again.

You said "good chance of being murdered". I gave you the statistics for cops killed in the line of duty and a link from that page to a break down of deaths from being shot, stabbed, strangled, etc. Sorry, but you are wrong. Cops are not being killed at a higher rate than they were 30 years ago. There is nothing in the statistics of police deaths to justify intrusive SWAT-type raids because "... 30 years ago when you lost a fight you just ended up with your butt kicked, and pride damaged. Before I retired, every cop knew that if he lost a fight he stood a good chance of being murdered. Times have changed." Time have not changed with respect to the number of cops killed in the line of duty from any cause, be it fights, traffic accidents, or choking on donuts. The numbers are essentially the same, even going down from a blip up in the 1920s and 1970s. In fact, 30 years ago, the number of cops killed in the line of duty was about a little less than twice what it is today and there are more cops on the force today making police duty by far more safe relatively speaking today than 30 years ago.

I notice that you provide nothing to back up your erroneous claim.

[Scotsman will be Free]

#1. I am not justifying why there are more SWAT teams, I'm trying to explain a rationale for it. There were more cops murdered 30 years ago, and a virtually no SWAT teams. Is there a relation?
#2. Your "choking on donuts" comment reveals your bias.
#3. I said a good chance of being murdered if they lost a fight, not more of a chance of being murdered for any reason. Nor did I say they are being killed at a higher rate than they were 30 years ago. Try a reading comprehension course.
#4. You are a typical bean counter. You look at numbers and have no comprehension as to how they accumulated. You know nothing of what has happened on the street for the past thirty years, but I do.
#5. I'm not justifying anything, but I wonder. Are police deaths down from the seventies, because of the increase of SWAT, more, and better training for the average street cop, or due in part to longer incareceration rates for the violent offenders?
#6. I am not a fan of numerous SWAT teams making "routine" raids. I'm not a fan of screwups or lousy training resulting in the deaths of innocents. I'm not a fan of ignorant people who know nothing about police work looking at some numbers and making sweeping judgements on subjects they have zero knowledge about.
#6. Don't bother responding. You obviously have an ax to grind, and aren't interested in thinking logically.

[philman_36]

The solution, however is not to think exclusively as the cops being the problem. They are only part of the problem...
I agree, some cops are a big part of the problem.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
You seem to have a real "Catch 22" going on. I can't get my mind wrapped around your thinking.

BTW, you're starting to read like a shill. I hope I'm wrong.

[philman_36]

Where are the stats on how many wrong houses have been hit/innocent homeowners being shot.
You may find this interseting Mr. oneolcop. Hopefully it'll crush your believed shibboleths of this being nothing more than an urban legend.
BTW It's not what you believe, but what you know that counts.
It is, after all, what you believe, not what you know. You believe it's all BS, an urban legend in your own words, so much that you're demanding statistical proof, which IMO nobody could possibly supply readily (which may be your real intent).
However, some help may be coming your way...
June 07, 2006 Three More
After eight months of researching this SWAT stuff, I thought I'd scoured every corner of Lexis and Factiva, and found all there is to find in the way of "innocent people killed in botched drug raids."
Nope. I continue to find more. The hidden ones tend to be in places removed from major metropolitan areas, and covered mostly in local newspapers. Which makes me wonder just how many more there may be.

Courtesy information source ping agitator if oneolcop has any more questions.

About Radley Balko (you did write the story)

[philman_36]

If there is "regular" pergery...
Do you mean perjury?
Thats seems more than a typo for a veteran cop.

[philman_36]

The feds are NOT COPS!!!
Define "cops".

[philman_36]

Case-law generally dictates the conditions under which a police officer can search. The cops can search any car on public property without a warrant. It's gone all the way to the supreme court.
Cops just "doing what they're told to do".
No thought process required or allowed, just "do as you're told"...

It's so easy to lay the blame at the feet of those who pass the laws: legislators and judges, isn't it.
Absolution is yours, therein.

[Politicalmom]

Tell that young man who was shot in the face for trying to take his seat belt off when he was WRONGLY pulled over that he is an "urban legend".