One Nation Under SWAT: The Militarization of Police Forces.

[Nice Squirrel]

I think we've touched on this before and the situation in Ferguson make it timely.

I want our officers to be safe, but seeing some of the weaponry and tactics makes me worried about civil liberties being crushed by an overzealous paramilitary force.

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/14/one...cas_police_became_an_occupying_force_partner/

Welcome to a new era of American policing, where cops increasingly see themselves as soldiers occupying enemy territory, often with the help of Uncle Sam’s armory, and where even nonviolent crimes are met with overwhelming force and brutality.

In a recently released report, “War Comes Home,” the American Civil Liberties Union (my employer) discovered that nearly 80% of all SWAT raids it reviewed between 2011 and 2012 were deployed to execute a search warrant.

Pause here a moment and consider that these violent home invasions are routinely used against people who are only suspected of a crime. Up-armored paramilitary teams now regularly bash down doors in search of evidence of a possible crime. In other words, police departments increasingly choose a tactic that often results in injury and property damage as its first option, not the one of last resort. In more than 60% of the raids the ACLU investigated, SWAT members rammed down doors in search of possible drugs, not to save a hostage, respond to a barricade situation, or neutralize an active shooter.

On the other side of that broken-down door, more often than not, are blacks and Latinos. When the ACLU could identify the race of the person or people whose home was being broken into, 68% of the SWAT raids against minorities were for the purpose of executing a warrant in search of drugs. When it came to whites, that figure dropped to 38%, despite the well-known fact that blacks, whites, and Latinos all use drugs at roughly the same rates. SWAT teams, it seems, have a disturbing record of disproportionately applying their specialized skill set within communities of color.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, if they break down a white person's door, he's going to bring it up at his next golf game at the club with the Police Commissioner and the Commissoner is going to be nagged obsessively by his wife until he reams out the SWAT team commander. That's extra hassle which they don't need to deal with when bashing down the door of some coloured folk.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

https://medium.com/the-nib/officer-friendly-28e8d9399bbb
Tom Tomorrow

 

[funinspace]

A very telling stat…with 2,700% increase in the use of SWAT raids in the last 30ish years. Ah, good thing part of our Reinvest in America was inclusive of SWAT...
https://www.rutherford.org/publicat...ice_in_america_now_a_military_occupying_force

Consider that in 1980, there were roughly 3,000 SWAT team-style raids in the US. By 2001, that number had grown to 45,000 and has since swelled to more than 80,000 SWAT team raids per year. On an average day in America, over 100 Americans have their homes raided by SWAT teams. In fact, there are few communities without a SWAT team on their police force today. In 1984, 25.6 percent of towns with populations between 25,000 and 50,000 people had a SWAT team. That number rose to 80 percent by 2005.
<snip>
In addition to equipping police with militarized weapons and equipment, the government has also instituted an incentive program of sorts, the Byrne Formula Grant Program, which awards federal grants based upon “the number of overall arrests, the number of warrants served or the number of drug seizures.” A sizable chunk of taxpayer money has kept the program in full swing over the years. Through the Clinton administration, the program was funded with about $500 million. By 2008, the Bush administration had reduced the budget to about $170 million, less out of concern for the militarization of police forces and more to reduce federal influence on law enforcement matters. However, Barack Obama boosted the program again at the beginning of his term, using the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to inject $2 billion into the program.

 

[doubtingt]

So, this pic doesn't really support your point, since almost all the gear they are wearing is protective and defensive and not offensive weapons. Note they are holding billy clubs and not guns, in contrast to soldiers who never use a club instead of a gun. When a bunch of criminals come looking to destroy and loot my property under the guise of "social justice", I want guys dressed just like that to be there to defend my neighborhood.
If the pick is of cops looking to instigate violence against people who are only marching or protesting, then that would support your point but has nothing to do with how they are dressed.

On the other side of that broken-down door, more often than not, are blacks and Latinos. When the ACLU could identify the race of the person or people whose home was being broken into, 68% of the SWAT raids against minorities were for the purpose of executing a warrant in search of drugs. When it came to whites, that figure dropped to 38%, despite the well-known fact that blacks, whites, and Latinos all use drugs at roughly the same rates. SWAT teams, it seems, have a disturbing record of disproportionately applying their specialized skill set within communities of color.

I really wish that just one time someone here would post stats that actually show racial bias and not selectively ignore the blatantly obvious facts that undermine their "racism" interpretation of the numbers. Are these drug raids trying to catch a guy suspected of smoking a joint on his couch? Because only then would the equal drug use among blacks and whites be at all relevant. Odds are very high that such "drug busts" are efforts to drug dealing rings that are often heavily armed and that are far more common in heavily minority neighborhoods.
I oppose the drug war, so I oppose such raids on dealers in general, but the fact that armed drug dealers are the suspects and not pot users matters greatly to the idea being put forth that these people are often innocent of any crime or that the racial disparity in the use of the tactic is inconsistent with the disparity in the suspected crime.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

How's this one for ya?

 

[NobleSavage]

Take away all their shit and give them bicycles. I love cops on bicycles.

 

[doubtingt]

How's this one for ya?

Better, but the fact that you can't tell the difference between this one and the first one you presented as evidence of a pernicious "militarization" of the police doesn't speak well of your grasp of the issue or your ability to distinguish real evidence from emotional propaganda. So now we have a photo that is at least potentially coherent with your claims, depending upon what is actually happening in that context and whether those are real deadly weapons that the military would actually used and not rubber bullets, etc.. So now you just need to fix the rest of your post and find some new stats that actually show evidence of racial discrimination rather than the one's you presented which assume that SWAT drug busts are just trying to arrest unarmed, non-dealing, drug users.

 

[+or-1]

I've said it before but welcome to the People's Democratic Republic of Amerika. Thirty years ago I feared we were rapidly becoming a fascist plutocracy and here we are. What I wonder at now is the abject complacency.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

How's this one for ya?

Better, but the fact that you can't tell the difference between this one and the first one you presented as evidence of a pernicious "militarization" of the police doesn't speak well of your grasp of the issue or your ability to distinguish real evidence from emotional propaganda. So now we have a photo that is at least potentially coherent with your claims, depending upon what is actually happening in that context and whether those are real deadly weapons that the military would actually used and not rubber bullets, etc.. So now you just need to fix the rest of your post and find some new stats that actually show evidence of racial discrimination rather than the one's you presented which assume that SWAT drug busts are just trying to arrest unarmed, non-dealing, drug users.

You do know the first picture I posted came from the article? This one from ABC news last night.

Now let's take a look at my actual words:
I want our officers to be safe, but seeing some of the weaponry and tactics makes me worried about civil liberties being crushed by an overzealous paramilitary force.

So now you just need to fix the rest of your post and find some new stats that actually show evidence of racial discrimination rather than the one's you presented which assume that SWAT drug busts are just trying to arrest unarmed, non-dealing, drug users

.

I'm not sure where you get I was talking about racism there. Yes, I did cut and paste part of the article that discusses racial dimensions, but I did not comment on them but thought it an important topic to discuss. I do not hold the opinions of Salon to be mine.

Now onto this one:

one's you presented which assume that SWAT drug busts are just trying to arrest unarmed, non-dealing, drug users.

Did you even read the article?

 

[doubtingt]

Better, but the fact that you can't tell the difference between this one and the first one you presented as evidence of a pernicious "militarization" of the police doesn't speak well of your grasp of the issue or your ability to distinguish real evidence from emotional propaganda. So now we have a photo that is at least potentially coherent with your claims, depending upon what is actually happening in that context and whether those are real deadly weapons that the military would actually used and not rubber bullets, etc.. So now you just need to fix the rest of your post and find some new stats that actually show evidence of racial discrimination rather than the one's you presented which assume that SWAT drug busts are just trying to arrest unarmed, non-dealing, drug users.

You do know the first picture I posted came from the article. This one from ABC news last night.

I didn't think you took the pic yourself, but I reasonably assumed you chose to include it for a reason, that being you saw it as an illustration of the claim you were making in your thread title and right below it about a paramilitary force. Are you now pretending it served no other purpose other than to show us what cops are in case we were confused?

Now let's take a look at my actual words:
I want our officers to be safe, but seeing some of the weaponry and tactics makes me worried about civil liberties being crushed by an overzealous paramilitary force.

So now you just need to fix the rest of your post and find some new stats that actually show evidence of racial discrimination rather than the one's you presented which assume that SWAT drug busts are just trying to arrest unarmed, non-dealing, drug users

.

I'm not sure where you get I was talking about racism there. Yes, I did cut and paste part of the article that discusses racial dimensions, but I did not comment on them but thought it an important topic to discuss. I do not hold the opinions of Salon to be mine.

You made a claim and the only support you provided was in your quote of stats from the Salon article. OF the 50 paragraph article you chose to quote two paragraphs, one which was entirely about the racial nature of the raids. The clear implication is that you are endorsing the parts you quoted. You gave no indication that you accept part of what you quoted as support but another part as merely side issue on which you're agnostic.

Now onto this one:

one's you presented which assume that SWAT drug busts are just trying to arrest unarmed, non-dealing, drug users.

Did you even read the article?

Yes, and it presents nothing to suggest that SWAT is going after users. If anything, suggests that dealers and sellers are the targets, but only with anecdotes and it provides no numbers that would relate to the stats you quoted in which the article tries to suggest the raids are racially motivated.

 

[repoman]

Not sure if anyone here likes TYT, but they are covering the shit out of this topic right now.

 

[thief of fire]

What I really like is that even small towns with no crime get militarized.

Small-Town Praetorianism: Barry Township Rejects Victor Pierce's Authoritarian "Vision"

The township is a “bedroom community” of about 3,700 people where crime is all but unknown and the police department – as far as official reports attest – has never solved a case.

Yet the BTPD, which has four full-time officers and operates out of a one-room headquarters in nearby Delton, was provided with four armored vehicles (including two APCs) through the Pentagon’s 1033 program. As part of what Pierce calls a “visionary balance for the community,” the chief trained and recruited a “reserve force” of nearly 40 officers, none of whom is a state-certified peace officer (a status regarded as important by people who believe the state can license people to carry out aggressive violence).

 

[Frikki]

There is a certain Moderate Libertarian that has the biggest hard-on from this thread.

 

[thief of fire]

Here area couple of rather disturbing advertisements for two police departments. It's little wonder there are so many problems
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im66lCgZrbc[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_rKA6ROAVk[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You do know the first picture I posted came from the article. This one from ABC news last night.

I didn't think you took the pic yourself, but I reasonably assumed you chose to include it for a reason, that being you saw it as an illustration of the claim you were making in your thread title and right below it about a paramilitary force. Are you now pretending it served no other purpose other than to show us what cops are in case we were confused?

Did you open the link? The photo is from the article. If you don't like it, take it up with Salon.com. I thought it was a cool photo reminiscent of protests that I have participated in where protesters were prevented from leaving designated protest zones and forbidden to talk to private citizens. Perhaps you've never stared down a wall of police while exercising your First Amendment rights?

Now let's take a look at my actual words:
I want our officers to be safe, but seeing some of the weaponry and tactics makes me worried about civil liberties being crushed by an overzealous paramilitary force.

So now you just need to fix the rest of your post and find some new stats that actually show evidence of racial discrimination rather than the one's you presented which assume that SWAT drug busts are just trying to arrest unarmed, non-dealing, drug users

.

Um. That was the entirety of my words. Perhaps your issue is with Salon.com. You should talk to them about the content.

I'm not sure where you get I was talking about racism there. Yes, I did cut and paste part of the article that discusses racial dimensions, but I did not comment on them but thought it an important topic to discuss. I do not hold the opinions of Salon to be mine.

You made a claim and the only support you provided was in your quote of stats from the Salon article. OF the 50 paragraph article you chose to quote two paragraphs, one which was entirely about the racial nature of the raids. The clear implication is that you are endorsing the parts you quoted. You gave no indication that you accept part of what you quoted as support but another part as merely side issue on which you're agnostic.

Please, what claim did I make? That I was worried about the militarization of the police?

Now onto this one:

one's you presented which assume that SWAT drug busts are just trying to arrest unarmed, non-dealing, drug users.

Did you even read the article?

Yes, and it presents nothing to suggest that SWAT is going after users. If anything, suggests that dealers and sellers are the targets, but only with anecdotes and it provides no numbers that would relate to the stats you quoted in which the article tries to suggest the raids are racially motivated.

Dude, you are reading wayyy tooo much into this. You might want to take issue not with me, but with the article. I can post an article that says, "Stalins backers deny purges". This does not mean I endorse it or support it. If you have issues, direct them toward the article, not me.

 

[Valjean]

I'm generalizing, of course, but in my experience the police have always been heavy handed and quick to take offense. It's a culture of authority and control. They're better equipped now, to be sure, and shock and awe has become standard operating procedure, but their authoritarian attitude hasn't changed appreciably.

Police feel a need to be in charge; to be in control. They hate disorderly behavior and expect to be obeyed. They demand compliance and deference.
In interactions I find you must never question them -- they take that as an offense; as mouthing off, as disorderly conduct or interfering with police work. If you persist you will be arrested. If you object or question the arrest a charge of resisting arrest will be added.

 

[TacticalLoco]

How stupid do Americans have to actually be anyway? This about nothing more than generating profits for gun manufacturers and advancing the NRA 'arming America fro fun and profit' agenda.
Anyone saying otherwise is an idiot. Period.

 

[credoconsolans]

So, this pic doesn't really support your point, since almost all the gear they are wearing is protective and defensive and not offensive weapons. Note they are holding billy clubs and not guns, in contrast to soldiers who never use a club instead of a gun. When a bunch of criminals come looking to destroy and loot my property under the guise of "social justice", I want guys dressed just like that to be there to defend my neighborhood.
If the pick is of cops looking to instigate violence against people who are only marching or protesting, then that would support your point but has nothing to do with how they are dressed.

Agree. This was my first thought. They look like construction workers with billy clubs. It's all defensive gear and they have no guns drawn. They look like someone about to wade into a crowd who might be wielding knives, bottles and rocks. I worry more for them, than the crowd.