Posted on 12/11/2013 12:40:46 PM PST by Kaslin
The University of the Incarnate Word is a highly-rated Catholic college in San Antonio, Texas. It is hardly a hot bed of campus violence. When senior Robert Cameron Redus was pulled-over last Friday by campus police for “erratically speeding,” it is unlikely he had any clue of how tragically the stop would end. The campus police department contends Redus, an honors student set to graduate in May, grabbed the officer’s steel baton during a struggle. Not in dispute, however, is that Redus was shot five times by the officer, at close range, leaving him dead and the University scrambling to explain why lethal force was needed to subdue a single college student.
Police-involved shootings are on the rise from New York City to Anaheim, California and crime data suggests incidents involving questionable use of police force -- once a problem primarily limited to large, inner-city areas -- are occurring with greater frequency in smaller towns across the country. For civil liberties watchdogs, this disturbing trend should come as no surprise; much like their federal counterparts, local police and prosecutors are demanding greater power to “pursue criminals,” even if such power may overstep constitutional limitation; and regardless of whether such an approach makes practical sense in low-crime communities or in many non-violent situations in which police officers are involved.
A major factor accounting for this trend is the massive infusion of federal “anti-terrorism” money being funneled from the Department of Homeland Security to local police departments. These billions are turning many neighborhood cops into paramilitary personnel -- equipped with vehicles and weapons intended for use in the world’s most violent warzones. The over- militarization of small-town America is turning Mayberry into the Middle East; with Andy Griffith monitoring a license plate camera while Don Knotts patrols the streets carrying an MP5. Officers now have military-style armored vehicles parked in their lots along side their Crown Victoria patrol cars. This has created such unusual scenarios as Ohio State University’s 40,000-pound, armored Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle, and sophisticated license plate readers in a town of 333 people.
More than simply increasing the likelihood of abuse or disaster, such militarization tends to change the psyche of the American police officer -- the more he is equipped like a soldier, the more he begins to act like one. This, coupled with today’s crime-speak that treats all crimes as if they were acts of terrorism, puts police officers mentally on the offensive; changing their perspective from “serve and protect,” to “find and prosecute.”
Perhaps this is why earlier this year, Virginia Alcohol Control Board agents pulled their guns on a frightened, 20-year-old college student. After mistaking her purchase of bottled water for alcohol, plainclothes officers surrounded her vehicle, and one agent jumped on her hood. Understandably frightened after being ambushed in a dark parking lot, the student tried to drive away as agents drew their guns and tried breaking her windows. Fortunately, the student was not shot. She was, however, forced to spend the night in jail and charged with three felony offenses. The District Attorney decided not to prosecute the case, but stood by officers’ decision to file charges against the student.
In a country where buying a bottle of water can escalate quickly into a potential five-year prison term, the once-common refrain of “you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide,” has become esoteric. Reports emerge daily about new details of the Obama Administration’s domestic spying programs. Recent court documents reveal the FBI’s ability to activate computer cameras without alerting users. Government agencies at all levels share our personal data with each other -- even data illegally stolen from commercial sites.
The entire attitude of the criminal justice system is shifting towards treating all citizens -- regardless of guilt -- as suspects. There is no more burden of proof. There is no more assumption of innocence. Your only “right” is to obey; just try to board an airline with a two-inch toy gun in a child’s back pack.
The best hope we have to undoing this statutory and regulatory nightmare created in recent years is to fight back through the ballot box and in court. Fortunately, organizations from across the ideological spectrum -- from the Institute for Justice to the American Civil Liberties Union, and many others – are actively helping to protect citizens from government abuse in all its forms.
All this is not to say there are not very real and very serious threats in communities across the country. Adam Lanza reminded us of that a year ago in Newtown, CT. These threats and incidents must be dealt with using a sound combination of good policing and new technology. But militarizing police forces in communities large and small, and treating all citizens as enemies, is not reasonable, necessary or American.
The best cop I ever knew told me that the key was politeness and patience.
He said, “I can be polite as long as necessary, and patient as long as necessary... because I know how the story turns out.”
He could practically convince the bad guy to put the cuffs on himself and think it was a good idea.
Because with those type of guys its not about ego.
Here is a portion of an article that I read. I had heard that cities could be held liable for not having some type of response team.
If you think a SWAT team might be good for your agency, but
you’re still on the fence, you might note that not having one can present its own problems. The failure to develop and maintain a SWAT unit, where viable, can be costly. Courts may not mandate that an agency have a SWAT team, but they can encourage its creation.
A 1982 barricade situation ended with an Anchorage patrol
officer taking a suspect’s life. The court ruled the officer’s actions justifiable, but concluded that the absence of mitigators, i.e., a SWAT unit, limited the police department’s options in resolving the situation. The city was held liable for the suspect’s death. Such was the impetus that gave rise to the Anchorage (Alaska) Police Department’s SWAT team.
/s
's' as in 'sarc'
He was a salty old boy.
Sorry don’t buy it. We have swat teams because they get lots of fun toys so law enforcement love em.
First of all there’s the court cases which say the cops are not there to protect individuals.
Secondly there are the multitude of successful lawsuits against cities for abuses by the swat teams. The wrong address, the dead dogs, the dead people at the wrong houses.
Thirdly swat teams tend to use violence to solve problems which results in more lawsuits.
The dad of a good friend of mine growing up was a cop. He was a good guy. He could do the same thing.
I have about 8 cops who live in my neighborhood. Only one will even say hi, the rest won’t even acknowledge you as you walk by.
I’m just as worried as you are. The Marxist in the White House is dangerous. Our country is divided like I’ve never seen it before. Good, decent people are being treated like criminals and the criminals are being protected. Corruption in the highest places is astounding and flaunted right before our very eyes. It almost makes one feel powerless.
I am worried what the future will bring. I think this next election is crucial in our nations history. I’ve recently heard politicians say it may take a revolution to take America back.
I’ve already had the discussion with my wife. If the time comes to make a stand, I’m standing up and doing what needs to be done whether I survive or not.
It is encouraging to hear a cop on the right side.
Don’t know ya, but your last post made me want to buy you a beer. Happy trails to ya.
My husband is a police sergeant for a town in a suburb of NYC. He is CONSTANTLY at odds with his boss, who keeps trying to make their little town seem like Fort Apache: The Bronx.
His boss was hired from the upper echelons of the NYPD. If I told you this guy’s best friend’s name, you’d probably know it (and you wouldn’t like it one bit — I know I don’t). He’s a jackass. I can’t stand him, or what he stands for.
Anyway, hubby is becoming more and more frustrated by the attitude emerging even in his department. Does my husband think there needs to be some extra training for an extraordinary emergency? Yes, certainly. In fact, he is the supervisor for that group of hand-picked officers. Does he think that the everyday operation of the department should be that of a flak-jacketed SWAT team on steroids? Certainly NOT.
And now that NYS has gone right off the deep end with the SAFE Act...he’s afraid of what Captain Jackboot might try to order him to do. If he does...hubby will put in his papers that day. We’d take a huge hit on his retirement, but he wouldn’t be able to carry out an order that violates his oath to the Constitution. So be it.
Regards,
Sounds like most veteran cops I know. The cherry on top is having them apologize for making you have to arrest them.
There are a lot of us. Believe it or not.
Damn, dawg. Now you are even singing my tune.
Yer alright, copper. :)
“A major factor accounting for this trend is the massive infusion of federal “anti-terrorism” money being funneled from the Department of Homeland Security to local police departments.”
That’s BS. The major trend allowing para-miltary police forces is conservatives sitting on their fat asses. If these Mammon-worshipping idiots organized and elected a Constitutional sheriff, you wouldn’t have gestapo goons shooting grandpa and dogs.
Gee, how does sergeantdave know that? Because sergeantdave lives in a community with a constitutional sheriff. We’ve indicted and imprisoned a number of rat politicians and fired two police chiefs who were harassing citizens.
Until conservatives get off their fat butts and take control of their neighborhoods by electing Constitutional sheriffs, expect jackboot thugs to step on your throats.
The Founders left us a blueprint on how to deal with tyranny in the committees of safety. Read it.
The trouble is telling who is who from the outside.
Thanks. I’d be honored to buy a round or three myself.
haha.. I’ve been to many choir practices.
I believe some time February, Ney York State will require all gun owners to register their guns as part of Coumo’s passed-in-a-hurry-after-Newton SAFE Act.
After this, he will require the police to start investigating those who do not register, and confiscate their weapons. I’ve heard less than 10% of gun owners are cooperating at this point.
What will the New York State Police do? County sheriffs? Local cops? I heard some NY cops are saying they won’t do it.
We’ll have an answer for you soon, it appears.
“If they want to be part of an army, they should join the military where they can use these tactics against people who shoot back, not unarmed citizens.”
Therein lies the problem. They want to play soldier, but they don’t want it to be real on the other side. It is a lot safer to play, if the dice are already weighted to your advantage.
Look at SWAT. More and more wannabe SEAL’s, and they choose SWAT because it is far more likely they will get to play with the toys, without having the toys aimed back at you.
The video of the Pima County SWAT guys who took down that Jose guy a while back were a great example. I watched the video as each and every one of them leaned around the guys in front, all desperate to make sure they got in their personal shot. Who can pass up the chance to be involved in killing a guy?
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.