Posted on 08/13/2008 3:09:59 PM PDT by LibWhacker
WASHINGTON (Map, News) - The violent assault on Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo’s home late last month was certainly not the first bungled raid by a government SWAT team, but the bad publicity it generated should make it the last time these trigger-happy squads target innocent civilians.
Tracking a 32-pound package of marijuana that had been addressed to Calvo’s wife, Trinity Tomsic, Prince George’s sheriff’s deputies forcibly entered the mayor’s home on July 29 and killed his two dogs before handcuffing him and his mother-in-law.
But like so many other SWAT team raids across the country, this one turned out to be a big mistake. After reviewing the case, State’s Attorney Glenn Ivey acknowledged that the Calvos were victims of a multistate drug ring that used innocent people’s names and addresses to hide shipments of contraband drugs. But the mayor and his family were also victims of a home invasion by the SWAT team, based entirely on what turned out to be a false premise.
In a groundbreaking study in 2006, former Cato policy analyst Radley Balko documented a disturbing pattern of cases across the country in which innocent citizens were killed by armed-to-the-teeth SWAT teams who either acted on the basis of wrong information from an informant or stormed the wrong house by mistake. “One thing I’ve noticed while picking through the depressingly long list of botched drug raids: The cops always shoot the dog,” Balko noted. Sure enough in the local case, Mayor Calvo and his family lost their two beloved black Labrador retrievers, but it could easily have been his own life or that of a family member that was lost. An apologetic “oops” from the responsible officials just doesn’t cut it anymore.
Originally set up to handle volatile, high-risk situations involving snipers, hostage takers or prison escapees, militarized SWAT teams have been unleashed on civilians with predictably disastrous results — as the fatal shooting of unarmed optometrist Salvatore Culosi by a Fairfax County SWAT team two years ago illustrated all too well. Sending a SWAT team to arrest Culosi was excessive compared with his alleged crime of betting on football games.
By sending a SWAT team to Calvo’s home, the Prince George’s Sheriff’s Department made the same mistake, setting the stage for a violent confrontation that could easily have escalated into something far worse.
It’s long past time for law enforcement agencies to restrict SWAT teams for use only in situations where massive lethal force is their only remaining option.
Yes, of course. The goons would have to go into the Homeland Security police and intimidate the general population.
That's actually the perfect approach for this situation. In cases like these, where the "addressee" is an uninovled bystander, it avoids harming or even inconveniencing innocent people. If the addressee were actually involved in the drug trade, then he'd be out $100,000 worth of mechandise and thereby big-red-capital-Superman-"S" screwed when his supplier comes asking for his cut of the proceeds.
LOL. By that "logic", Bill Clinton must be innoncent of perjury -- it made no real sense for him to lie because the truth was bound to come out, ergo, he did not in fact lie.
Indeed. The abject cowardice shown in so many cases where forcible assault actually was clearly called for (e.g. Columbine) just makes incidents like this all the more outrageous.
Yep -- you'd think that being the only one to defend this idiocy on a law-and-order conservative forum would at least give somebody a bit of pause....
Now you are a liar. I did not say "put them all on an island". I had criteria to determine who went to that island.
YOU became indignant because I was going to send irresponsible drug users away, comparing it to a gulag.
If you MUST use your drugs while driving, I think you should pay a penalty. What do you think?
The issue here is lives LOST due to p!ss-poor prior planning coupled with overwhelming (and unnecessary) military-style force. So it doesn’t matter if a cop’s life is saved by their terror tactics. Cops get paid to take risks. Just like members of the military. Let THEM take the chances instead of ordinary citizens. No cop should be anywhere near a person’s private residence (or any other private building) if he or she is NOT IN PROPER UNIFORM. With faces and badges completely visible. Ever. No plainclothes raids, no SWAT teams, no nothing of the sort.
Do thieves show up at the doors of beer pushers or tobacco dealers to steal their stash and cash? Ummmmm, NO. Because those things are sold over the counter at stores. Do ordinary maggot thieves rob stores on occasion? Yes, because they are maggots and thieves (and deserve to be dead at the hands of their victims). Just as ANYONE who busts into someone’s home for any reason deserves to be dead at the hands of their victims. Especially in circumstances such as those surrounding this case.
Liquor store robberies are exceedingly common.
“The dogs were the first deaths at Mt. Carmel.”
And, IIRC, the dog was the first death at Ruby Ridge.
Sh*thead
Wannabes
Aggressively
Terrorizing
No.
Reasonable recognizes that room for error always exists. They made erroneous assumptions, followed by more erroneous assumptions, followed by a show of unjustified force.
Since the incident, the PGSD issued a statement that asserted they did nothing wrong.
I've got news for them, and for you...no REASONABLE person can look at this and say that nothing wrong was done.
Already noted that such things happen. But you know as well as I that it’s NOT the same as a drug ripoff. Jack Daniels does NOT kill Johnny Walker dealers, nor does Anheuser-Busch hijack Miller Light trucks. Why? Hmmmmmmmm... Dunno, could it have something to do with the products being LEGAL and available at your corner store? Could the legality and age restrictions have anything to do with it being easier for kids to get pot or meth or heroin than beer? Geeze. It sure is hard to figure out, isn’t it?
You are correct. It was the dog, then the deputy marshal, then the kid. Pretty much in that order, I think.
More likely the product screws up the customers and that has a serious impact on their future behavior.
Alcohol and tobacco screw up more people than heroin or pot EVER did, even when they were legal. It is, as with alcohol prohibition, the LAW that has created the problems surrounding the use of some substances. Including the penchant government agents (and their boot-licking sycophants) have for wiping their nasty a$$es with our Constitution.
You can’t prove a thing you’ve said.
See: Whiskey Rebellion.
I'd imagine George would be really surprised to find that his understanding of the Constitution he helped select for use in his country is different than your understanding of that same Constitution.
One of you guys is wrong, eh. Either George Washington, or you.
I am familiar with the Whiskey Rebellion, and while I think GW was wrong, taxing is a whole ‘nuther kettle of fish from banning or outlawing things. There is NO authority granted to ban things in the Constitution. There IS authority granted to lay and collect taxes on various things.
And if you try to palm off that sick, lame and sorry argument that such activities are not PROHIBITED by the Constitution, I will first point out the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States, then I will track you down and come over and barf all over your keyboard. The Constitution, as any gradeschooler USED to know, is a LIMITATION ON GOVERNMENT, not on We, the People.
Yes, I can. That it has been shown, on THIS VERY FORUM, over and over again means I will not do it again, but it can readily be shown. Your positions, on the other hand, cannot be proven using facts or logic or rationality; only by feelings and emotions and lies and government thuggery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.