Flash-Bang Grenades Better Than The Smell of Maxwell House in the Morning

[Athena]

http://media.hamptonroads.com/media/content/pilotonline/2007/11/1201swat500x325.jpg

Have you ever been witness to a SWAT raid? Let me tell you, it's RATHER exhilarating. There's nothing quite like hearing footsteps outside your bedroom at 4am, walking to your window to see who's out there, only to be greeted by the image of a man in full riot gear, holding a M-16 that is now pointed in your direction, screaming at you to get away from the window. Groggy and frightened, you stumble back just in time to be dropped by the sounds of flash-bang grenades being lobbed into the windows of the upstairs neighbor's unit.

Another victory in the War Against Drugs? Action taken to protect the lives of officers? Whatever you may call it, I call it overkill.

When things have quieted down just a bit, you again venture to the window, curious about what, exactly, is going on. Out toward the alley, you see a vehicle that looks like a mini-tank, right down to the camo. You see nearly a dozen officers dawning black from head to toe, holding some awfully big guns. Directly outside your front door, you see occupants of the apartment being tossed to the ground face first after having been recklessly dragged down the cement stairs leading to their home and before being zip-tied and left to wait on their bellies for what will likely amount to more abuse. Your stomach is sickened by the sight of a middle-aged, 100lb Asian woman being dropped listlessly from a couple feet up, her head bouncing off the pavement she landed on.

Believe it or not, my distaste for SWAT raids is only magnified by my personal experience. There are much more pervasive and principled reasons for opposing the militarization of police precincts across the nation.

At least, in my experience, the targets of the raid were actually drug-dealers. Non-violent offenders, they were still subjected to weapons and treatment best left reserved for out-and-out warfare. Can you imagine being innocent and suffering from a SWAT raid? I think I'd rather be raped, personally.


On September 4, 1998, for example, police in Charlotte, North Carolina, deployed a flashbang grenade and carried out a no-knock warrant based on a tip that someone in the targeted home was distributing cocaine. When police got inside, they found a group of men playing cards. One of them, 56-year-old Charles Irwin Potts, was carrying a handgun, which he owned and carried legally. Potts was not the target of the raid. He had visited the house to play a game of cards. Police say Potts drew his gun and pointed it at them as they entered, at which time they opened fire, killing Potts with four shots to the chest. The three men in the house who saw the raid say the gun never left Potts’s holster. Police found no cocaine in the home, and made no arrests.

The men inside the house at the time of the raid thought criminals were invading them. “Only thing I heard was a big boom,” said Robert Junior Hardin, the original target of the raid. “The lights went off and then they came back on . . . everybody reacted. We thought the house was being robbed.” Despite Potts’s death, an internal investigation found no wrongdoing on the part of the raiding officers. Source (http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf)

Every year in America, HUNDREDS of innocent households are the targets of mistaken SWAT raids. Homes are literally torn apart in the search for evidence. Innocent people are injured and killed. Children are permanently scarred by the images of boogeyman-like individuals violently invading their home and abusing their parents.

Lazy police work combined with tips from questionable "informants" lead to warrants that are hastily executed and victimise upstanding citizens.

In my opinion, there is absolutely no justification for local police departments using this level of force to pursue tips. SWAT teams should be reserved for the most extreme circumstances a police force encounters, if they should even exist at all.

More stories:

This man is suing the police department for mistakenly raiding his home. (http://www.courant.com/news/custom/topnews/hcu-laywerclaim-0207,0,4237203.story)

An increasingly common occurance, these men staged a drug raid to illegally gain access to a home. (http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/20080129/NEWS/801290315/1016/NEWS)

A woman was killed and her baby shot during raid. (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2008/jan/07/swat_team_shoots_baby_kills_mom_)

[swivel]

Well, they definitely need to exist. There are times when sending officers into a situation would be a slaughter for the officers.

I'm curious, though, how you make the claim that a "hundred" incidents of harassment, one anecdotal incident of manslaughter, and the soft claim of some "children permanently scarred" makes you think of disbanding a group that does otherwise outstanding work.

But, in another thread, you think that 300,000 physical ailments, and a 97% increase in the rate of heart disease, does not mean we should get rid of cigarettes.

My guess is this: If cigarettes were made by the government, you would hate them. And if SWAT teams were privately-run, you would forgive the very small minority of cases where they make mistakes.

Me thinks you are a closet conspiracy theorist. An evil person who lives with paranoia and fear, and needs her privacy in order to feel safe from the rule of law. Either that, or you are just a fucking hypocrite, eh?

[CPL CHUD]

I think having SWAT teams is totally neccessary. I also think that people are always going to make mistakes. I think the goal, instead of decreasing the use of SWAT, should be decreasing the need for them in the first place.

[Athena]

Well, they definitely need to exist. There are times when sending officers into a situation would be a slaughter for the officers.

I'm curious, though, how you make the claim that a "hundred" incidents of harassment, one anecdotal incident of manslaughter, and the soft claim of some "children permanently scarred" makes you think of disbanding a group that does otherwise outstanding work.

But, in another thread, you think that 300,000 physical ailments, and a 97% increase in the rate of heart disease, does not mean we should get rid of cigarettes.

My guess is this: If cigarettes were made by the government, you would hate them. And if SWAT teams were privately-run, you would forgive the very small minority of cases where they make mistakes.

Me thinks you are a closet conspiracy theorist. An evil person who lives with paranoia and fear, and needs her privacy in order to feel safe from the rule of law. Either that, or you are just a fucking hypocrite, eh?

Swivel, honey...baby....love of my life....

Do I strike you as paranoid? Did you (again) miss my reference to the time that I allowed officers into my home, without a warrant, to search...Because I had nothing to fear? Or, maybe you missed the time that I outlined my desire to be a police officer? I know, you just love to paint me as a hardcore Libertarian, and, don't get me wrong, I love to be painted by you, period...But, your depiction is WILDLY inaccurate. It's okay, Picasso dealt with the same shit and was still a genius.

How many articles of raids gone wrong do I have to post to convince you? Seriously? Am I shooting for a specfic percentage? Am I shooting for a specific number? Because, I stand by my assertion suggesting "hundreds". I'm against the death penalty, too, darlin'...Because, as it relates to MY government, collateral damage is simply unacceptable. It's got NOTHING to do with morality. It's got to do with accuracy. If OUR government is in the business of killing good people, they've over-stepped their bounds.

I look at my government and I see failure. I consider Katrina, and realise that the local government failed their citizens, and then relied on the Feds, only to be failed again. And that's the government we want breaking into our home with MILITARY capacity?

Tell me, Swivel...How many innocent American deaths is acceptable to you? More importantly - Are you ready to classify a police officer life as MORE important than a civilian life?

[swivel]

Tell me, Swivel...How many innocent American deaths is acceptable to you? More importantly - Are you ready to classify a police officer life as MORE important than a civilian life?

EXCELLENT!!!

Wonderful. Tell you what, I will agree with the disbanding of S.W.A.T., if you will agree that we need to get rid of alcohol, cigarettes, pot, and gambling. Deal?

Read my post again, sweetie. I was calling you a hypocrite, which you are clearly being.

*smooches*

[Rotten Apple]

I was going to stay out of this, but for the record even after having a family member killed by a member of a SWAT team in a botched raid, I still think they are necessary.

My only problem with them lies in the fact that they are overused and many are not properly trained.

I think it should take more than a tip from an informant to warrant the use of a a SWAT team. Many of the informants are criminals them selves and are trying to get out of some charge they have against them.

In our case, all the officers would have had to have done was to go up, knock on the door and ask for permission to search the house. They would have quickly realized that not only did the person on the warrant not live at the address, but the people inside the house would have been more than willing to accommodate them.

Instead, they ran in the house in full tactical gear, startled the family, and shot an unarmed 17 year old boy with no criminal record in the face when he jumped out of bed after hearing his sister screaming "Please don't shoot me."

Now, they did find some marijuana residue in an ashtray in this boys room. And the hair follicle test done during his autopsy showed that he had smoked approximately 2 weeks before.

This was enough for the DA to crow to the media "We got the right guy!"

This was all started on a tip from a parolee who was trying to get out of some charge to keep from going back to prison. Do you know how costly this whole thing is? Not only did the city incur the cost of the original raid, but the investigation after and now they have the cost of defending themselves in court. There are many more details I would love to give you on how the city is trying to defend themselves and the facts to refute it, but I can't because, now, even a year later, the FBI is still investigating and there is a civil case.

Sorry to get into all my personal details, but as you can see I am a bit bitter.

[swivel]

Thanks for sharing, Kathy.

It would be great if we didn't need SWAT. If cops could come knock on a door, and the people inside, whether good or bad, would step aside and let the cops come in and look around before they decided on what action to take.

Unfortunately our country is so chock-full of guns, and our sentencing is so lax (and conditions in prison so comfortable) that the bad guys don't wave the cops in, they shoot them. My guess, without even looking, is that more cops are killed in the line of duty than innocent people.

If we could get the bad guys to stop shooting cops, the cops wouldn't have an itchy trigger finger. And when people continue to blame the cops for this state of affairs, it makes me a bit sick. These are the same twisted idiots that keep defending the guns we have everywhere, keep defending the illegal drug use that gets these wars going, and keep fighting for the rights of the criminal, in sentencing, imprisoned comfort, and parole.

It is as if the criminals have a network of supporters out there, fighting for them at every turn, and doing so because these people look at their own behavior and understand that it is only a matter of time before they are on the other side of the fence. I think they are trying to keep it as comfortable over there as possible for their imminent arrival. And sabotaging the system that could land them there at every turn.

[Rotten Apple]

Unfortunately our country is so chock-full of guns, and our sentencing is so lax (and conditions in prison so comfortable) that the bad guys don't wave the cops in, they shoot them. My guess, without even looking, is that more cops are killed in the line of duty than innocent people.

If we could get the bad guys to stop shooting cops, the cops wouldn't have an itchy trigger finger. And when people continue to blame the cops for this state of affairs, it makes me a bit sick. These are the same twisted idiots that keep defending the guns we have everywhere, keep defending the illegal drug use that gets these wars going, and keep fighting for the rights of the criminal, in sentencing, imprisoned comfort, and parole.


I'm not disagreeing with you one bit.

In the end, being in law enforcement is a choice. When you choose that career path, you know what kind of danger you get into. It is ultimately the responsibility of LE to ensure that their officers are properly trained and all their i's are dotted and t's are crossed before they enter someone's home with weapons.

I have issue with using SWAT teams to serve search warrants. The original purpose was for them to be used in highly dangerous situations. Any kind of surveillance would have shown LE that they had nothing to fear in this particular situation and many other just like it.

And just to give you a little better visual. This is the team that raided the house. Dressed exactly as they were that day. See those helmets, vests and those weapons? However, this officer was so afraid for HIS life that a half asleep boy was shot in the face.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f232/kapesetsky/starh1.jpg

This guy still patrols the streets of that city to this day.

[swivel]

This guy still patrols the streets of that city to this day.

Looks more like a paintball team. Is that Boss Hog?

And I agree that the system needs to be improved. And so do the people that make up the system. They don't enjoy making mistakes, and do everything they can to limit them.

From what I understand, the majority of cases of SWAT teams fucking up is simply getting the wrong address. I immediately think of surgeons cutting off the wrong limb, or operating on the wrong person. That used to happen quite a lot, so new systems were put in place. Permanent marker is used on the patient during prep, with the patient awake. Charts and wrist ID's are cross-checked before administering meds or prepping for the OR. Nurses do inventory for OR tools to make sure that none are left in the patient.

These changes are made to reduce the mistakes, but there is no way to prevent them.

My feeling is that people don't have a problem with SWAT because of their mistakes, they hate SWAT just like they hate all "Big Brother" concepts, and then they look for reasons to justify that hate. You, unfortunately, didn't need to go looking for the reason, it came to you.

[Rotten Apple]

Looks more like a paintball team. Is that Boss Hog?

Sheriff Jess Howell, very typical of the way people look in my home town.

And now that you mention it, they do look like a paintball team! I guess you shouldn't expect more from people who qualify to be on the team with a 3 day course held in a hotel. :rolleyes:

[swivel]

Sheriff Jess Howell, very typical of the way people look in my home town.

And now that you mention it, they do look like a paintball team! I guess you shouldn't expect more from people who qualify to be on the team with a 3 day course held in a hotel. :rolleyes:

I took a one-week course and people gave me the keys to their $15,000,000 yacht and told me to, "Take them to Barbados".

I know what you are saying about your town. I grew up in hick joints, and one of my highschool friends grew up, became a cop, started cheating on his wife, found out his mistress was going to break things off, pulled her over with his squad car, shot her in the face, shoved her drivers license down her throat, and poured lime on her.

What do you do about the fact that the people you use to police an area must mostly COME from that area? You end up with a squad of rednecks that signed up because "shootin' stuff is FUN".

I suppose the alternative would be to not have these squads, and see what that entire village of armed rednecks would do then...

[What Would Satan Do]

It's unfortunate that we live in a world where SWAT teams are necessary, but we do.
Even non-violent offenders have the means to obtain firearms, and when cornered they can (and often do) quickly turn violent.
Is an innocent American life worth less than a Police Officer's? No.
But a criminal American's life is.
Especially when weighed against the life of one of the many good Police Officers who go to work every day and try to do their best within the limits of a fucked-up system.
Having said that however, I have to agree that the training and selection of SWAT officers needs to be upgraded.
When a small county receives a grant for SWAT equipment, they need to spend more of that money on training...good training. Instead it would seem that they spend the majority of the money getting the most/best/latest/coolest equipment they can, then training is an afterthought.
Also, within those smaller jurisdictions, the number of officers they have to make-up a SWAT team is limited. There are always going to be SWAT members who are there mainly because they get cool gear and the notoriety among their peers as being on the SWAT team. In a small jurisdiction the percentage of these guys on the team is going to be larger, these are the guys who will be daydreaming about full body armor and AR-15's during what little training the do get. With limited officers to choose from, SWAT members might have to go through a review to get onto the team, but they're not hand chosen by qualified individuals, they volunteer, it's almost a first come, first serve basis. Even if there are more qualified officers on a waiting list, they're not going to get a chance unless they're at the top of the list, and someone else leaves the SWAT team.

[Athena]

EXCELLENT!!!

Wonderful. Tell you what, I will agree with the disbanding of S.W.A.T., if you will agree that we need to get rid of alcohol, cigarettes, pot, and gambling. Deal?

Read my post again, sweetie. I was calling you a hypocrite, which you are clearly being.

*smooches*

I'm holding the government to a different standard than I am holding individuals. How is that hypocrisy? They are two entirely different types of entities. I also hold corporations to different standards than individuals, and hold different types of organisations to different sets of standards.

But, since we're on the subject, what's gambling got to do with it? I was able to follow the logic for all the other issues listed, but, gambling? How does that end lives, accidental or otherwise?

[swivel]

I'm holding the government to a different standard than I am holding individuals. How is that hypocrisy?

So we need two ethical systems? One for the government, and one for the people?

You are revealing your anarchic roots more and more. You are arguing that a death at the hands of an individual, and a death at the hands of a government employee should not be weighed the same.

Or that the harmful effects of a government action should not equal the same effects from the action of an individual.

I see this as a way to defend yourself, having just been exposed as a hypocrite, more than I can imagine it to be something you really believe. Tell me how you think this would work, or how we could calculate the differences. If a government employee, on the job, struck a person with their car, killing them, should we punish them more severely than a private citizen, who did the exact same thing? Really?

And by an imbalance, you really can wave your hand at the stats I've posted on secondhand smoke, but see the cost/benefit of SWAT as being in the negative? C'mon.

[Athena]

It's unfortunate that we live in a world where SWAT teams are necessary, but we do.
Even non-violent offenders have the means to obtain firearms, and when cornered they can (and often do) quickly turn violent.
Is an innocent American life worth less than a Police Officer's? No.
But a criminal American's life is.
Especially when weighed against the life of one of the many good Police Officers who go to work every day and try to do their best within the limits of a fucked-up system.


A valid perspective, certainly...IF you are asserting that the existance of SWAT teams saves the lives of officers. While I would have to do more research, I might argue otherwise.

If you do a quick google, you will find dozens and dozens of stories about SWAT officers killed during raids. It's often a direct result of their "no-knock" or "quick-knock" entries. I'm a gun owner; if someone busts into my house without announcing themselves, which is EXACTLY what SWAT officers do quite frequently these days, I may be prone to shoot. I'm an upstanding citizen. I can only assume that if someone is forcing entry into my house, it's to cause me harm.

Now, will I be able to find statistics that illustrate the percentage of officer deaths before SWAT teams were established vs. the percentage of deaths since? Better yet, will I be able to find statistics that correlate the number of deaths with an increase or decrease in SWAT activity? Eh...probably not, but I'll try.

Until then, however, I'd like to point out that the training issue is exactly why I think SWAT teams should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances that really require that level or type of force. Hostage situations, perhaps. Or even drug busts...but ones when they KNOW FOR FACT that the people they're going to deal with are armed and dangerous. This would cut WAY down on the number of innocent deaths related to mistaken raids, and it would result in more focused training. The less time and money spent raiding, the more time and money spent training. The "if they should exist at all" portion of that statement simply suggested that there might be a better way, although it is beyond me, currently.

[Athena]

So we need two ethical systems? One for the government, and one for the people?

You are revealing your anarchic roots more and more. You are arguing that a death at the hands of an individual, and a death at the hands of a government employee should not be weighed the same.

Or that the harmful effects of a government action should not equal the same effects from the action of an individual.

I see this as a way to defend yourself, having just been exposed as a hypocrite, more than I can imagine it to be something you really believe. Tell me how you think this would work, or how we could calculate the differences. If a government employee, on the job, struck a person with their car, killing them, should we punish them more severely than a private citizen, who did the exact same thing? Really?

And by an imbalance, you really can wave your hand at the stats I've posted on secondhand smoke, but see the cost/benefit of SWAT as being in the negative? C'mon.

Even if the outcome is equal, the means is vastly different when it comes to death caused by an individual and a death caused by a organisation. That's why they must be viewed differently. It's why we've got corporate law, which is different than criminal law, which is different than civil law, which is different than constitutional law. If the outcome was ALL that mattered, there'd be no reason to differentiate.

The difference between you and I, swivel, is that I look at more than simply the bottom line. You, apparently, see nothing more than two deaths and, as such, would be quick to criminalise the whole of what caused said deaths. I look at everything that led up to these deaths and consider how the contributing factors can be reasonably tweaked to reduce risk AND preserve that which is paramount in this country, individual liberty.

Do you know that I do this for a living? I'm a process engineer for a manufacturer. When I am presented with a non-conformance...Say, a box my company printed is the wrong color, I don't just cut printing out of the process. No matter what, we've still got to print. Instead, I see what can be reasonably adjusted, maintaining the ability to print but limiting the potential for that non-conformance. Sometimes, however, this just isn't possible. Not all of the non-conformances can be consistantly avoided, so...We do as well as we can and accept it when there's nothing more we can do.

The conflict, here, is that you put the greater good above individual liberty. Until you view individual liberty as a necessary and defensible element of this nation, we will never find common ground.

[TXChris]

My guess, without even looking, is that more cops are killed in the line of duty than innocent people.


source (https://www.nleomf.com/TheMemorial/Facts/year.htm)

In 1993 there were only 156 police deaths in the line of duty. According to the study, cited by the partial article below, that same year police killed 330 innocent people.

source (http://www.actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml)

"....Armed Citizens Make Fewer Mistakes Than Police

Don't think that just because the police are trained in the use of firearms that they are less likely to kill an innocent person. A University of Chicago Study (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226493644/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/102-3993670-7898564) revealed that in 1993 approximately 700,000 police killed 330 innocent individuals, while approximately 250,000,000 private citizens only killed 30 innocent people. Do the math. That's a per capita rate for the police, of almost 4000 times higher than the population in general. OK, that is a little misleading. Let's just include the 80,000,000 gun owning citizens. Now the police are down to only a 1200 times higher accidental shooting rate than the gun-owning population in general.

That still sounds high. So let's look at it in a different light. According to a study by Newsweek magazine, only 2% of civilian shootings involve an innocent person being shot (not killed). The error rate for police is 11%. What this means is that you are more than 5 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. But, when you consider that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as do police every year, it means that, per capita, you are more than 11 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. That is as low as I can get that number.

This is not meant to be an indictment of the police. In fact, because police often live on the edge, they naturally tend to shoot first and ask questions later. Although they are trained to repress this instinct, it does not always work, as evidenced by the number of innocent people killed by police. Also, since they are generally better marksmen, they tend to kill, rather than wound or totally miss their target.

The Kleck study shows that police shoot and kill around 600 criminals each year. Yet the University of Chicago study shows that police killed 330 innocent individuals in 1993. That means that for every two criminals killed by police, one innocent citizen is killed by police. Although I have the greatest respect for the police and how they must respond under pressure, I think that I would much rather trust an armed populace...."



While I'm at it, here is a link to a map of Botched Paramilitary Raids (http://www.cato.org/raidmap/).