With the news out of AZ this week how do you all feel about the use of military style weapons and tactics on civilians by law enforcement? I don't want to see the police outgunned by the bad guys but it is totally unacceptable for SWAT teams to be gunning down innocent people in their homes. The police must be held to a higher standard than they are currently. A quick search on the internet will bring up dozens of cases of innocent people being shot or being put at risk by these kinds of tactics.

The platform is pretty clear on the 4th Amendment. From the platform:

Quote:

The Government, absent probable cause, has no right to search you at all. This same prohibition must extend to "warrantless wiretaps" and other forms of search and seizure, whether of person, property or communication. If there is probable cause for a search then the government can present its evidence to a Judge and obtain a proper and lawful warrant. Absent a valid warrant or beyond its lawful boundary (e.g. if executed upon the wrong residence) the entry is unlawful and, if entry is forcible such an entry is in fact an armed invasion.

What do you feel is missing?

Thats good as for as it goes but whats the "or else" These things happen far too often because of the lack of the "or else". The police say "sorry, my bad" and that's the end of it. Plus something about the idea of SWAT teams, in and of themselves, just rubs me the wrong way. The thought that on any given night the jackbooted thugs could be kicking down my door and shooting my dog (or me) simply beacuse they got the wrong address does give me reason to pause.

Maybe this wasn't the right place to bring it up, if it wasn't I apologize, but the use of military weapons and tactics against civilians (weather they're bad guys on not) by the police just seems wrong to me. It's far too easy for things to go wrong and when they do innocent people get hurt or killed.

The or else on this?

Quote:

Absent a valid warrant or beyond its lawful boundary (e.g. if executed upon the wrong residence) the entry is unlawful and, if entry is forcible such an entry is in fact an armed invasion.

What do you do to an armed invader?

A lone bugler is one thing but a dozen, or more, young hot heads, filled testosterone and adrenaline armed with flash bang grenades, automatic weapons and body armor is something else. If they kick in my door in the middle of the night by mistake I have every right to grab my shot gun and defend myself. I would be within my rights but I would be dead if I did. But in the middle of the night when my door gets kicked in how do know if it's the police or the thugs? Seems to me that question would be easier to answer if I knew the police didn't have all that gear and couldn't act like that from the beginning. Yes, in some situations that would make the job harder and more dangerous for the police but fewer innocent people would get hurt or terrorized. Besides nobody is forcing people to join the police force.

If you were going to have the police at your door my mistake wouldn't you rather it be Sheriff Andy and Deputy Barney than a dozen jackbooted stormtroopers high on testosterone and adrenaline? I just don't think that the police should be able to use all that gear and those tactics weather they are serving a proper warrant or not. Not on civilians.

We're getting into the weeds here folks. Look, the fact that the platform is silent on certain details doesn't mean it is not important. It just means it doesn't go here.

I thought that might be the case, again I apologize.

Added:

Platform wrote..

The 14th Amendment means what it says. Equal protection under the laws is not a snappy slogan. It is a civil right. The current practice of permitting insider trading by Representatives and Senators is a direct affront to the Constitution and must end. Likewise, there can be no civil or criminal immunity for a police officer who oversteps his lawful authority (e.g. by no-knock entering the wrong house); such an event is a criminal felonious invasion and should injury or death to the occupants result the police officers involved must face charges identical to those brought against a random person who performs the same act.

Thank you for adding that. I hadn't thought about it but it needs to be in there.

So often the SWAT-type raids simply are not justified. They are not needed to ensure apprehension of the suspect or preservation of evidence.

The cops could nap the person much easier and at much less risk to all by simply serving the arrest warrant on him as he gets in his car in the morning, or following the car a few blocks from the house and then surrounding the car and serving the warrant, or any one of a dozen other scenarios.

But like Orion says above -you're dealing with generally young, hothead, testosterone-filled men here. They've got that military eqipt., battering rams, body armor, etc., and damn it, they're gonna strap that **** on and go on a power trip.

Pack your bags baby! We're going on a trip - a power trip!!

True Lilvern, but if the risk profile was raised on a false or bogus raid then the incentive to do this would go down a LOT.

The solution to this is that if you **** up you have no immunity for your actions and are treated as a common thug. There are legitimate times for these sorts of tactics (e.g. an active kidnapping where the perp has people held hostage); expanding their use to a common drug bust (as is often done today) needs to come with the risk of the cops involved going to the slammer if they raid the wrong house or their warrant gets thrown out.

There are legimate times for SWAT tactics to be sure. You've given one example and there are doubtless others. The issue is that these SWAT tactics have become SOP for any drug bust on a residence or commerical buidling that is suspected of being a center for drug dealing. As you say "expanding their use to a common drug bust (as is often done today)".

The only thing I'd lose from your statement above is the phrase at the end: "if they raid the wrong house or their warrant gets thrown out".

I'd say that even if they get the right house and its a valid warrant they still should not be using these tactics for routine drug busts.

Orion is right in his posts above: these tactics put innocent people in harms way and a quick internet search reveals numerous instances of these raids harming innocents. The CATO Inst. has been tracking this and has a great map here:

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

That's true, but the solution is to end the liability shield when the force exceeds their lawful sphere.

Raid even the right house but shoot an innocent person with a stray round? Sorry, that's negligent manslaughter for the person who fired it.

Point being that the Constitution already takes care of this. We just need to enforce it (in this case the 14th Amendment)

I'm all for giving them the Warhammer50k Armor and the bullets that zap right into the bad guys skull no matter where they are located at and the taser that can hit every Mofo in the room. It makes utilizing appropriate force-compliance a much easier job.

I've talked with SWAT guys, you won't believe what the heavy arms units have to deal with. When your called out on duty 2+ times a month in Florida to go serve warrants against illegal aliens who stack 15 guys in a 4-person home and will do !$!@#$ like replace stairwells with ladders and mount bunk beds there, who are packing everything from glocks to AK's they got set up with from their homies in Mexico City. The moment you go through that door your finger is on the trigger and you are going to shoot whatever looks even remotely like a firearm and your face-mask does not come off until everyone is either dead or arrested and you wear fake nametags to ensure Mr Ariel Rodriguez isn't going to look you up in the phonebook and f-up your family.

So long as they are following the law, the constitution, and an appropriate SOP that includes force-escalation dialogue, we're good. Otherwise they're acting as thugs.

The only thing I would REALLY like to have is a Constitutional "Code of Engagement" Amendment that states

"In dealing with domestic affairs of Law Enforcement, if in the service of executing a warrant, a U.S. Citizen whom is having the warrant executed upon them barricades themselves within an entrenched position, both parties shall enjoy the privilege of demanding the audience of the other at a physical table upon neutral Ground and safe passage both to and from that table with members whom possess authoritative jurisdiction over their respective party. If the party whom the warrant is being executed upon fails to give audience or attempts to inflict bodily harm upon law enforcement during the proceeding of providing audience, law enforcement is entitled to defend itself and further execute the warrant with deadly force if necessary. If any Law enforcement officer refuses to provide audience in person, or motions to arrest, detain or inflict bodily harm upon the individual during proceedings, that law enforcement officer shall be immediately disposed of their position, barred from holding any position within any branch of government for life, and shall be jailed for not less than 180 days."

"Keeping the peace" isn't for cowards. If law enforcement is serving a warrant to seize a home and the homeowner can prove to a lieutenant then and there they have the title, why not set up a $20 wall-mart table and sit down and talk? "Hey Officer Friendly, can't we just flip that 6 to a 9 on the house, say you have the wrong address, I go into the courthouse tomorrow, get this whole warrant thing quashed, then go sue the bejessus out of these guys then we all go out for Taco's on me? Here's the title, I have it, it's right here. Here's the latest mortgage payments, too. Otherwise, I'm going to go back in and things are going to get risky."

FFS this is not rocket science.

Quote:

So long as they are following the law, the constitution, and an appropriate SOP that includes force-escalation dialogue, we're good. Otherwise they're acting as thugs.

But they dont. And they get medals for killing innocent people.

Quote:

So often the SWAT-type raids simply are not justified. They are not needed to ensure apprehension of the suspect or preservation of evidence.

There is also the 'new toy' syndrome. The SWAT team has a new 50 cal, APC, xxx, well then they feel the NEED to use it. Why have a new toy if you can't play with it.

Then the second factor, the need to use all the equipment so as not to get branded as having spent a lot of taxpayer $$ on equipment that you never use.

I am thinking that the state governments need to get in control of all these county/city SWAT teams. Bring them under state control and have some review over when it is appropriate to use them.

Flap

and once they are under state control it'll be easier to get under Federal control....

the issue isn't the weapons, it's the mindset. I work n projects with various LE departments, the corporate culture from one agency/department to the next is striking, some I can barely tolerate it is so "anti civilian", us versus them attitudes and others are amzing in how they consider themselves servants to the people. The culture...

Quote:

I've talked with SWAT guys, you won't believe what the heavy arms units have to deal with. When your called out on duty 2+ times a month in Florida to go serve warrants against illegal aliens who stack 15 guys in a 4-person home and will do !$!@#$ like replace stairwells with ladders and mount bunk beds there, who are packing everything from glocks to AK's they got set up with from their homies in Mexico City. The moment you go through that door your finger is on the trigger and you are going to shoot whatever looks even remotely like a firearm and your face-mask does not come off until everyone is either dead or arrested and you wear fake nametags to ensure Mr Ariel Rodriguez isn't going to look you up in the phonebook and f-up your family.

So there's the ******ned problem right in front of you. If you're after MR Arial Rodriguez.....you wait until he walks out of the front door in the AM and arrest him / take him down. Just like David Koresch, the cops could have apprehended him on dozens of occasions as he went into town. Instead we have fukken dead babies.

Stupid ****ing tactics lead to fukked up results.

New Toy Syndrome: Saw this driving through a little, tiny town of 5,050 in NW NJ the other day...Seriously?

I saw one of those (or similar) parked in a police department parking lot in a small town with population around 10,000.

Why do we have SWAT style, no knock raids for drug busts? Two words: asset forfeiture.

If they take the bad guy down going to work they dont get the house...

Looks like DHS new toy. Wonder if they are getting fleet deal pricing on those?

What is "HSI"? (That is what what it says isn't it? "HSI special response team.")

Ah...

Either "homeland security institute" or "homeland security investigations." Both seem to be in common use.