SWAT and the Second Amendment
On May 5, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. in Tucson, a multi-agency SWAT team served a search warrant at the home of Jose Guerena (a Guerena case archive may be found here). Guerena, a former Marine combat veteran, was sound asleep, having returned home from the midnight shift at a local copper mine only a short time earlier.
Guerena’s wife Vanessa saw armed men in the front yard and woke Jose, who had time only to hide her and their son in a closet as far from the front door as possible and to take up a rifle to meet the unknown threat. Jose would not take his rifle off safe or fire a shot. Smashing in the door, five members of the SWAT team fired 71 rounds into the home, shredding it from floor to ceiling and wall to wall. They hit Jose 22 times and denied him medical care for more than 74 minutes, ensuring his death. They even managed to shoot the front door, doorframe, and the walls around the door multiple times. Miraculously, Vanessa and her son were not harmed.
The search warrant affidavit upon which the police relied contained no probable cause to search Jose’s home, but a judge — believed to be Charles V. Harrington — authorized it anyway, and shortly after the botched raid, Judge Harrington ordered it sealed. No evidence of the drugs — or anything else illegal — the police supposedly sought was found. The officers did try, weakly and briefly, to identify themselves before smashing in the door. They did not have a no-knock warrant. Several officers initially claimed Jose fired at them or pointed his rifle at them, but it quickly became clear they had no idea what Jose did, nor could they explain which officer fired the first shot or why.
On July 15, 2012, at 1:30 a.m. in Leesburg, Florida, Lake County deputies knocked on the door of 26-year-old Andrew Lee Scott’s apartment, thinking attempted murder suspect Jonathan Brown was inside. They did not identify themselves in any way. Brown had been seen earlier in the apartment complex, and his motorcycle was parked near Scott’s apartment. This was the only “evidence” of his presence. When Scott opened his door with a gun in his hand, a deputy opened fire, killing Scott. Brown was later found in a nearby apartment and arrested.
Police have not released many details, but the deputy fired multiple rounds, including some through the door of the apartment. Initial police statements suggested that Scott pointed the gun at deputies, but they seem to have backpedaled to the position that Scott was merely holding the gun. Scott apparently had prior arrests for drugs, and a small amount of marijuana and related paraphernalia was found in Scott’s apartment. News accounts made no mention of a warrant.
Said Sheriff’s Spokesman Lt. John Herrell: “It’s just a bizarre set of circumstances. The bottom line is, you point a gun at a deputy sheriff or police officer, you’re going to get shot.”
How are these cases related? In each case, an innocent man was unnecessarily killed by police officers. And in each case, the police justified the shooting by the fact that the victim, reasonably defending his home, was armed when confronted by the police. In the Guerena case, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said: ”I don’t think anything was mishandled. Unfortunately, this individual points an assault rifle at cops. You do that, you are going to get killed. And the community has no reason to be concerned about it.”
Unlike Sheriff Dupnik, the community — every community — has more than sufficient reason to be concerned about the idea that anyone holding, perhaps merely carrying, a firearm within his own home is fair game for absorbing an unlimited number of police bullets should the police suddenly arrive and demand entry, with or without identifying themselves or their intentions.
To understand this issue and the danger this kind of police thinking presents, it’s important to understand the general legal requirements for the use of deadly force. These requirements may vary a bit from state to state due to differences in statutory language, but they apply to police officers and citizens alike. In many respects, police are expected and required to be far more capable and accurate in the application of deadly force than citizens, and rightfully so.
Deadly force is justified only to stop the imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to oneself or another. A possible threat at sometime in the future is insufficient. A threat that might reasonably result in a painful bruise is not sufficient. A reasonable person — or reasonable police officer — must believe that if they do not immediately use deadly force, they or another will be very seriously injured or killed, and they must be able to clearly articulate their convincing reasons for that belief.
If deadly force is justified, one may fire as many rounds as necessary from as large and powerful a weapon as required to stop the threat. This principle, however, does have some practical limitations. Police officers are always required to use the minimum force necessary to accomplish any legitimate objective. If two rounds are enough to stop a deadly threat, they are not justified in firing more. Police officers are always — always — personally responsible for each and every bullet they fire. They are always responsible for ensuring a safe backdrop before firing. If they miss or their bullets over-penetrate, they must be certain their bullets will not strike innocents.
It might seem unnecessary to state that the police — and citizens alike — may not create the conditions necessary to claim justification for using deadly force. That is essentially premeditated murder. However, considering that police shootings of innocent citizens in their homes are something less than uncommon, it may be necessary indeed.
The Guerena case is noteworthy in part because Jose Guerena did not fire a single round or even take his rifle off safe, yet five police officers fired 71 rounds in a blind panic, stopping only when they emptied their magazines or their weapons malfunctioned. Their bullets not only struck nearby homes, many flew through the Guerena home and ended up in places unknown. It is a miracle they did not shoot each other. In the Scott case, a single deputy fired an unknown number of rounds, but he apparently did not empty his magazine despite also perforating the door of the apartment. It is not known how many rounds struck Scott or where the other rounds fired came to rest, though apparently no one else was hurt.
Police officers have, in the eyes of the law, a greater burden due to their supposedly superior training and experience. They are expected to be calm, observant, and capable of the use of superior tactics that will minimize danger to themselves and others to the greatest degree possible. In dangerous situations, they are expected to be capable of taking the extra fractions of a second necessary to be absolutely certain they need to shoot. When they shoot, they are expected to fire the minimum number of rounds necessary to stop a deadly threat, and to be absolutely accurate. Unfortunately, reality can be very different indeed.
The simple truth is many police officers are not good shots. A great many citizens surpass the average police officer, not only in terms of combat experience, but in shooting skill. Firearm training is very time consuming and expensive for law enforcement agencies. For a 100-man police force, a 50-round yearly qualification can cost $1500.00 in ammunition alone. Taking officers off the street for qualification and training is many times more expensive. SWAT officers are supposedly given enhanced training, which is much more expensive than common street officer training. Many officers never truly become comfortable and proficient with their duty weapons, and I’m speaking only of attaining minimum yearly — or less frequent — qualification scores. Many never fire their weapons other than required qualification shooting, and many never clean their weapons.
As bad as this situation is, the only training in the use of deadly force some officers will ever have is in their basic training academy. This it also true for training in shoot/don’t shoot scenarios. This training is vital, for it consists of taped, interactive scenarios that help officers to properly, quickly, and accurately evaluate when they should and should not shoot. Unfortunately, this sort of training is even more expensive than common qualification shooting, and after basic training, many police officers never again have the opportunity to refresh and upgrade their knowledge and skill.
As bad as both situations are, they are compounded by several factors that virtually guarantee the unnecessary and unjustified deaths of innocents:
(1) Millions of citizens lawfully carry concealed weapons. Police can encounter them, male and female, young and old, at any time and any place. Competent officers know this and behave properly and professionally around everyone.
(2) Millions more have firearms in their homes. Competent police officers know they may encounter legally armed people whenever they go to any citizen’s home. They know they may face particular danger if they do not clearly identify themselves or their purpose, particularly when they arrive at times and under circumstances people would not expect visitors — or the police.
(3) Contemporary police training often focuses on the idea that police officers must go home, unharmed, at the end of every shift. This is, of course, to be preferred by any person of good will, but when this idea is not balanced by proper training and the application of proper tactics, it can easily lead to a “shoot first and let God sort them out” mentality.
(4) There is reason to believe many contemporary police officers are hardwired to shoot first and often. Those entering police academies over the last decade are the first generation born into a computerized, predominantly visual world. For many, their introduction to a computerized world and the world of tactics is shoot-’em-up video games. A venerable police axiom is “train the way you want to fight, because you’ll fight as you’ve trained.” In other words, when situations go to Hell in an instant, police officers fall back on their training, on what they’ve been hardwired through practice and repetition to do. In the case of the younger generation of police officers, it’s possible they’ve hardwired themselves to shoot, shoot, and shoot again, without regard for reality or consequences. They have, in essence, trained themselves to be aggressive and amoral.
The first key to preventing unwarranted shootings is continual and correct training. This is expensive, but in the long run far less expensive than dead innocents and the millions cities will end up paying to grieving survivors.
The second key is careful selection, hiring, and supervision to ensure that amoral people never carry a badge and gun. Every police agency has officers that should not be police officers, people psychologically and emotionally unsuitable for the job. Every officer knows who they are, yet they continue to be employed, and they inevitably cause great harm.
The final key is the use of proper tactics. In many cases, such tactics are nothing more than the skillful application of common sense rather than advanced, high-tech skills and procedures. In many cases, SWAT teams should simply not be used. As I have previously noted, such teams should always be properly trained and employed in carefully controlled circumstances. They should not be used for the service of common warrants and for apprehending criminals commonly handled by a patrol force.
In the Guerena case, the police knew Guerena’s habits and working hours. All they needed to do was take their time, to exercise a bit of patience, and to approach Guerena with one or two officers at a time of their choosing when Guerena had limited or no access to weapons and was at a tactical disadvantage. They could have approached him at work, at the 7-11 where he routinely stopped for coffee, or even at his mailbox. Had they taken this rational approach, they could easily have arranged to serve the search warrant and no one would have been harmed.
In the Scott case, the officers were likely caught up in the excitement of the moment and felt a pressing need to catch an attempted murder suspect as quickly as possible. Rather than taking the time to be certain who actually lived in Scott’s apartment, they pressed blindly ahead. They could easily have watched the apartment from concealment and caught Brown — if he was actually there — as he left. They could have simply called the occupants on the phone and safely talked them out. More importantly, they could have clearly identified themselves and used proper tactics and equipment to protect themselves to avoid having to shoot.
In both cases, the officers did not control events; events controlled them. This is a fundamental tactical mistake taught in all competent police training.
In a free society, a society with a fundamental right to keep and bear arms, police officers believing they may shoot a citizen in his own home simply because he is carrying a firearm cannot be tolerated. Officers must absolutely avoid putting citizens in situations where they might be armed, or even pointing firearms in the direction of police officers banging on or breaking down their front doors. If such misconduct is tolerated, as in the cases of Jose Guerena and Andrew Scott, the next knock on any citizen’s door may be the last they ever answer.
Don’t blame the video games for the change in police personality over the last 10 years; such things existed well before that. Blame it on the post-9/11 hyper security mindset where everyone is considered a potential terrorist. We have too many SWAT teams and too many expensive “toys” sitting around; we have a lot of hammers looking for nails.
This state/thug mentality pre-dates 9/11 by a couple decades.
Yup. David Koresh and Randy Weaver being prime examples from 20+ years ago. All law enforcement had to do was wait for an appropriate time to serve a warrant on the suspects as they were buying groceries, filling their car up with gas, etc.
Instead, in each caes we got a massive cluster___ and the deaths of innocents. Oh, and no accountability on the part of the enforcers. I have little doubt there are many less publicized examples out there as well.
They want to play cowboy? Let ‘em join the damned army.
Tin shield tough guys. It’s not going to be too much longer before they get themselves on the receiving end of people firing first and asking later.
Unfortunately, U.S. Army and Marine tactics for taking terrorists holed up in houses, as worked out in Iraq and Afghanistan, do not permit the kind of gunplay that these two examples illustrate. So these murderous thugs wouldn’t be welcome there, either. They’d also be subject to quicker and more severe discipline for failing to obey ROE and tactical doctrine: the services have no union determined to protect their membership from any sanction or discipline no matter what crime they’ve committed.
At some point soon, the Castle Defense will run up against a SWAT team.
Read the article, that point has already be reached.
Getting shot while holding a gun with the safety on is not my idea of a Castle Defense.
First up, the raid was bogus and the marksmanship piss-poor in that event. Utter failure of the entire admin process to create/serve the warrant, and a contemptible display of fire control discipline even IF they were justified in shooting…
BUT.
I’m getting real tired of this “his weapon was still on safe” comment showing up all the time, as if its some sort of “evidence” to further one sides opinion.. Another “ah-ha, see?” to throw out there as more “proof” the Swat Team screwed up.
It is not, for several reasons.
One is because is simply not possible, or reasonable, or of any particular tactical value, to determine if anyone elses weapon is “on safe”. It simply cannot BE reasonably determined from arms length away, unless they practically hand it to you for inspection.
Safeties usually are small little levers located on the SIDES of firearms, near the operators thumb.
Maybe, MAYBE…if someone is pointing a weapon directly ACROSS your front, that is to say, not AT you at all but in a 3 to 9 o’clock orientation presenting (the correct!) side view of it, stood still in good lighting at only arms length away, and asked “can you tell?”…
Then MAYBE, depending on the weapons control features, you could tell “Safe” from “fire” with confidence.
The other reason is, some weapons HAVE no observable/selectable safeties, and for the ones that DO, flicking the safety “off” and firing a shot are near simultaneous events, just nano seconds apart if you have the slightest competency in operation the weapon.
What I’m saying is, the position of a guys safety in ANY shoot, is a non-issue. Its nothing that COULD have be determined, and even IF determined, it gives zero indication of the “gun holders” intentions.
Again, IMHO this was a BAD shoot and it was BADLY executed….I’d like the “Typical of Government Competency” bullet holes splattered all over the door frame, walls, hallway, and whole freaking neighborhood, to get a lot more airplay as proof of their stupidity, recklessness and malice, than wasting time on the position of the victims safety.
Because its a non issue.
I don’t think that anyone is arguing that the SWAT team could discern that Guerena’s weapon was on Safe while they were busting in the door.
1. The initial police statement was that Guerena had fired first. The fact that the gun was on Safe puts the lie to that statement.
2. It provides us a window into the mind of the man who can no longer speak for himself. He was operating with self-control and discipline. A gun of Safe cannot result in an accidental discharge, which is clearly something that the SWAT team needs more training in.
It doesn’t matter. The SWAT team created a dangerous situation through their own gross negligence, and the result was that a man was shot to death in his own home for engaging in lawful self-defense against an unprovoked invasion of his home. The SWAT team should be charged with voluntary manslaughter, if not breaking-and-entering and felony murder.
The author of the THIS article, and several commeters have bemoaned the fact his weapon was “still on safe” or “never even taken off safe” as if it is at all meaningful.
The shoot was bad, but the breathless and indignant “it was still on SAFE!” whine I hear everywhere constantly added to the “complaint file”, is a bogus and damn near EMBARRASSING point to harp on.
I’m just tired of it being brought up by people who (ought to) know better.
It’s very meaningful. When the police first justify the shooting because the guy shot first, yet that guy never took the safety off.
The police have no idea what happened…theyre so f#cked up its a miracle they didnt kill a few of their own, or several others in the neighborhood…
A similar event occurred near me, in Warrington PA…56 rounds fired at a child with a BB gun in his back yard…again with an approximate 90% MISS ratio…
The 50 + stray rounds ended up all over the neighborhood, some in SECOND STORY BEDROOMS, several blocks away, from their complete lack of fire control discipline….
The “position of the safety”, or even the fact it turned out to be a BB gun are irrelevant.
What IS relevant is, did the circumstances justify deadly force. Because even if it DID, the PERFORMANCE of the guys pulling the triggers was absolute CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE that should result in the Chief, the officers, and the Weapons Training Command to spend some time in JAIL for their abject failure to perform responsibly when the chips were down.
Thats the elephant in the room nobody talks about.
He was holding a rifle not a pistol and the safety on a rifle is much harder to operate in some weapons. stop acting like YOU know wath really happened. the authors 3 things that went wrong is wrong also. The first thing that went wrong was the issuing of the warrant in the FIRST place. No warrant SHall be issued with out probable cause and stating the items or person to be seized and singed by a magistrate or judge and sworn or affirmed by the officer.
And at some point, the SWAT team (and all other jackbooted LEOs) are going to run up against the fact that the citizenry considers them just another gang. At that point, juries will refuse to convict people who defend themselves against them.
My hypothetical was: “What would happen if a SWAT team invaded the home of an innocent person who had a legal weapon that would easily penetrate SWAT body armor in a Castle Defense. To be perfectly clear, such a weapon would kill or injure one or more SWAT team members in the process. If this happened, what would the legal ramifications be?” Perhaps those without street smarts did not understand my short-form comment.
Oh, by the way, we are already a third world country.
Can somebody out there explain how a nation founded on individual liberty with a WRITTEN constitution GUARANTEEING limited government and the RIGHT to defend one’s life, family and property, has come to this?
Let’s remind ourselves and, more importantly, our government, what the Fourth Amendment actually MANDATES:
“The RIGHT of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, no Warrants shall issue, but upon PROBABLE CAUSE , supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
It is long past time that we, the people, start taking our responsibilities as citizens seriously and employ the ballot; the one weapon bequeathed to us by our Fore-Fathers and begin electing people at every level of government who actually will follow The Constitution.
If we don’t, we can only blame ourselves for the loss of our liberties.
It is the attitude that government is right and the citizen is wrong combined with the attitude at police are more important, more valuable than the mere peasants they are charged to control.
ty you said it better then i did
I kind of want to hear what Jack Dunphy has to say about this, since he’s a part of the, “the police must be safe at any cost crowd*”, but I also don’t care that much.
*The quotes are a rhetorical device and not a quote of Mr. Dunphy.
Relax. A badge licker of some sort will show up shortly.
Everyone who thinks, knows liberty is being systematically crushed in this country. Everyone who thinks, knows the media is 90% biased to the left. . . yet so few recognize that the media’s glorification of lawyers and police, especially those willing to “go beyond” the law is pure pro-police state propaganda.
The neo-cons in large part built the police state and are now blind to the fact that it’s only master is itself, just like any bureaucracy. The left knows full well they can now control the police state simply by feeding their budgets and letting them buy new toys. . . like drones and .50 sniper rifles.
I’m sure I’ll get the usual response from stance supporters of the “war on drugs” that started this trend to militarization of the police. After all any libertarian who is in favor of a Constitutionally limited government is really and “anarchist” or so I’ve been repeatedly told.
“After all any libertarian who is in favor of a Constitutionally limited government is really and “anarchist” or so I’ve been repeatedly told.”
No, most are just idiots, and “limited government” is just code for legal pot.
Just like “socialist” is a “code word” for “black”. There is actually very little difference between the big government, mind reading neo-cons and the big government, mind reading communists. . . very damned little difference in the end.
The neo cons are progressive democrats that thought the new left was insufficiently violent.
“and “limited government” is just code for legal pot.”
No, it’s code for the American Revolution, which was working ok until Wilson, FDR, Johnson–and now Obama–got ahold of it.
And of course, until Establishment Republicans like you decided that was ok. And you have. That’s what you are saying when you say that a conservative party might win a handful of seats and that’s it. You aren’t recognizing reality. 40% of the nation is conservative, 20% is liberal. Give them good choices as a party, and they’ll vote that way, capturing a majority of the muddle in the middle.
The next congress should instruct the courts via law, as the constitution empowers them to do, and as in in keeping with Supreme Court precedent, that juries are finders not only of fact, but also judges of the law and it’s application to the case. They should by restrictions on spending, halt all practices of voir dire exclusion from jury service not relayed to actual bias.
Perhaps the jury pool should vote itself on whether a given juror is excluded from service, with a judge able to over-ride an exclusion.
And yes, absent deceit by their client, the loosing lawyer should pay.
They keep saying “don’t look behind the curtain”, don’t they Tom?
Well the ones like Art Chance keep saying it.
They will not hardly dare, so they will not win anything that changes much.
Not the Stupid Party, the Pointless one.
40% of the nation is conservative, 20% is liberal.
Yeah? Not sure how that gets you to the Great Libertarian Majority.
And most who self-identify as conservative are really describing a state of mind characterized by caution, temperance, and resistance to change, especially change for the sake of change; it really isn’t an ideological position as many try to characterize it. You can get very wide agreement on the “conservative” position of less government spending, debt reduction, less government intrusion but when you get them to just what spending they’d like to cut, just how to reduce that debt, and what intrusion they’d like to eliminate, you simply cannot get even a majority not to speak of a governing coalition.
Until the Justice Department mau-maued Sen. Stevens, my state was about as red as states get; Republican control of the Legislature, the Governor, and the Congressional delegation. Many “conservatives” look at Sarah Palin as a conservative icon, yet she spent money like a drunken sailor, essentially buying that 80% approval she had. The good citizens who elected her, especially her Wasilla constituency, would all characterize themselves as conservatives or moderates, yet drug use is de facto legal in Alaska and rampant in Wasilla, the meth capital of Alaska, de jure legal in the 1st District, the State economy has a level of socialism as defined as government support of and control of the economy that the former Soviet Bloc would have envied. The Sports Arena that Palin liked to brag about wasn’t paid for by private subscription or even by the taxpayers of Wasilla; it was paid for by the State Government, almost exclusively, as were the new police headquarters and the Interstate Highway standard interchange that made Wasilla and the Parks Highway the primary route rather than Palmer and the Glenn Highway; that’s what central economic control can do, you just reward your friends and punish your enemies.
When you want to cut spending, start with a campaign to reduce Social Security and Medicare benefits to those either already receiving the benefit or within striking distance of receiving them, and see how many votes you get. See how much you can cut Medicaid and all the Welfare programs when the dying mommies with cancer and the staving babies show up on TV. Ask fmr. Governor Swartzenegger how it feels to try to rein in public employee unions without a friend in the World – and don’t point to WI; if that recall hadn’t been nationalized, Walker would be a former governor. If you are going to control any of those things, you absolutely must do it at the edges and incrementally in the same way that the left installed them over the better part of a century or you must have run and been elected with a governing majority on the specific platform of the cuts and eliminations you plan to make. And even if you do get elected on a specific reform platform, the opposition will be virulent and your survival will be a close-run thing – ask Walker.
But, the “true conservatives” believe that all you have to do is run on a “Constitutional Government” platform and the World will be at your feet. You can always tell a libertarian or a “true conservative,” but you can’t tell them much.
At the national level, with the pre-civil war constitution, being conservative is quite libertarian because of the few defined tasks and powers the national government has. With the post-civil war amendments–absent the preposterous “incorporation doctrine” of the Supreme Court, which is rightly derided by conservatives as a whole cloth invention of that bench–the states are prohibited from doing what the national government is prohibited from doing. This extends much of that libertarian, night-watchman government to whole of the nation.
And bottomline, if it meant the government could not push their agenda–but that the government no longer pushed the left’s agenda–most social conservatives have faith their position will win out; and they’d take that deal. Libertarianism is the conservative position in this country, and the “right wing” progressive experiments like Prohibition have all been disastrous failures. This nation’s conservatism is not European, it is not Burkean. It is Joseph Plumb Martin drawing a bead on Burke’s peers. In contrast, the left knows it can only get what it wants with a cattle-prod backed up by a machine gun, so it knows it must grow authoritarian government, which America is intended to be the abnegation of.
Art Chance is fine with government as it has grown, the latest outrages possible excepted.
@Tom Perkins – No, I am not fine with government as it has grown in either size or, especially, power, but I am equally not fine with self-styled true conservatives/libertarians who don’t know a damned thing about government or politics and whose prescriptions hand easy victories to the communists, e.g., Maryland, Nevada, almost here in Alaska in ’10 and definitely in ’08 when the votes that went to the Constitution Party elected Begich over Stevens.
Every one of those programs and policies that self-styled conservatives decry had at least 50% + 1 in the Congress plus the President’s signature at one time and the worst of them still enjoy considerable or even majority support in the electorate, e.g., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and whatever they’re calling aid to poor children these days. There is no doubt that we cannot afford SS and Medicare/Medicaid in their current form or CommieCare in any form, but the reasons first SS and then Medicare were created still exist and even more powerfully than they did in the ’30s and ’60s: the kids ain’t going to stay on the farm or in the small town and take care of their parents in their old age, and the economy needs a mobile workforce. If you go all Paul Ryan and start talking about major changes in either SS or Medicare, the Left confronts everybody in America with suppressing their standard of living to take care of aging parents. You can reform these programs but only incrementally and only by putting in place some alternative. You could probably get a governing coalition elected in support of significant welfare reform, Gingrich did it in the ’90s, but the reforms were incremental – and even they caused a hue and cry – and calculated not to cause the cities to burn. Because of the racial gerrymandering of the Voting Rights Act, the black and Hispanic districts become blacker and more Hispanic and their politics becomes more and more radical with each census; you won’t get anything resembling bi-partisan support for reform of the “welfare” programs and you risk something close to a race war if Blue city and state politicians want one.
Republicans cannot win an election without the support of the mushy middle who mostly define themselves as moderates but many would self-describe as conservatives. What distinguishes the mushy middle is their unwillingness, perhaps inability, to tolerate controversy and insecurity. To govern from the right you must have them to get elected but if your governance causes controversy or makes them feel insecure, you lose them. Want to make sure Comrade Obama is re-elected? Just start some riots and rumors of riots in the swing states where we need the votes of suburban mommies who live around Blue doughnut cities. They and their husbands will either stay home, vote easily stolen absentee ballots, or vote for Obama in hopes of keeping peace with “his people.” If I can figure that out, so can Axelrod.
Another darling of the “true conservatives” is the elimination of various federal departments. A good start might be seeing if we can eliminate them in the state governments controlled by Republicans and I don’t believe we can even in Republican states. The hue and cry about how the Republicans/conservatives want dirty air and water, uneducated children, no safety programs in the workplace, and on, and on would be insurmountable for ANY elected official. What can be done is the kind of stuff that Republicans/conservatives just hate because it involves actually running a government: in the states we control, we can stop feeding the hands that bite us. If we must have a Labor Department, put a business person at the head of it rather than an ex-union business manager. If we must take the federal money for training programs, give them to training firms that actually train people and that are run by business people rather than retired union business agents. In other words, even in Republican states, a Labor Department or whatever department dispenses federal Labor Department funds, is nothing but a money laundry from the taxpayer to the fed to the unions. The same is true for Environmental Quality departments; stop giving grants to Greenie front non-profits, letting contracts to Greenie-front companies, and for God’s sake, stop hiring Environmental Studies graduates. If you must have an Education Department and a Health and Human Service Department put an actual administrator in charge of them rather than a former teacher or social worker and review the qualifications for the people they employ to make sure you’re not just employing unemployable lefties by allowing “Studies” majors to qualify without work experience – in most government jobs, they do.
Another darling of the true conservatives is “cut the budget by n percent.” This is most commonly said by the “true conservative” who knows the least about government. Actually, you could cut most government budgets by 25% or more without the slightest short-term effect on direct services to the public. Except for a few governments in long term dire straits, any government that is saying it has to cut police, fire, teachers, etc. is lying and just trying to manipulate public opinion. But what happens when you impose a general budget decrement is that the things the pubic can’t see get cut such as all the infrastructure functions and interal controls over money, people, and stuff. Already corrupt and inefficient governments become more corrupt and less efficient because nobody is minding the store. Nobody is monitoring how those grantees and contractors are performing and they figure it out quickly and start using that money to reward friends and punish enemies or they just outright steal it. Nobody is checking the qualifications of new hires and promotions so before long you have a bunch of “friends” of somebody employed by your government. Nobody is reviewing the bid specifications so the RFP could really just read “Is your company owned by Joe Blow?” Of course, this is the sort of stuff Democrats do everytime they take over a government. They make a flashy press release about examining their processes and streamlining the government and use the streamlining as a way to remove all the ministerial controls over money, people, and stuff, lay off or run off all the old hands who actually know the rules, and make the government safe for Democrat corruption. And the “true conservatives” want to save them the trouble by imposing a decrement that “streamlines” the government for them. You cut budgets by first re-organizing to eliminate unnecessary or duplicative programs. Then you centralize all infrastructure functions at the highest possible level and consolidate all programmatic functions into areas of greatest commonality an put them under one management. Governments are designed by Democrats to be run by Democrats and to employ the maximum number of Democrats. No Republican mayor, governor, nor President could possibly replace all the political appointees in most governments with loyal competent Republicans/conservatives, so they put in some of their friends in the most visible places and leave the Democrats in charge of the rest of the government, then they spend their term wondering why they’r being leaked, thwarted, and sabotages. Simplify and flatten the organization, reduce the number of appointed managers and both cut the budget and make the structure something a Republican/conservative could run.
I could go on awhile but I know this stuff is boring to true conservatives who think that all you have to do is slash and burn.
“and “limited government” is just code for legal pot.”
Yup.
And “Medical Marijuana” is code word for turning a blind eye to drug dealers.
Some places in California (and Colorado?) have more ‘Legal Pot Shops” than actual patients with prescriptions for “medical marijuanna”. You know any OTHER retail industry that can survive on LESS THAN ONE CUSTOMER PER RETAIL STORE? Gee, who ARE they “selling” the stuff to, HMMM?
I dont care what their argument is, just be truthful in it. They want high school kids to have free access to reefer? JUST SAY SO, and let the debate begin. A completely free and open border with Mexico? Ban all private ownership of firearms? Kill babies for convenience? JUST SAY SO, and let the debate begin.
The problem is, the left is always making up stories, excuses and false narratives to sneak their way (wink, nod) into places they could not go if they were HONEST about what their real intentions are.
Oh yeah, prohibitions are great. Just ask you.
5) It’s a self-fulfilling prophesy. You show up at a house with 15 of your closest friends, all heavily armed and wearing body armor, late at night after you’ve already been on duty for 16 hours amped up on caffeine, sugar and adrenaline ready to take down some “mean motor scooter” and instead it’s a 90 year-old woman with a cane. Two hundred and seventy eight rounds later the woman is dead of a heart attack and it’s time to bury the innocent victim and the questions.
It’s rather peculiar logic – the police can’t calmly knock on the door during the light of day because the criminal might, I type again might, attempt to destroy the drugs (and this all stems from the failed “War on Drugs”) so they must risk life, limb, neighborhood, innocent victims, family pets, murder, mayhem and less than sterling press coverage (but never any bad press) to secure their evidence. The evidence must be had at any cost in order to demonstrate that the vastly expensive “War on Drugs” isn’t a complete and utter failure. I’ll note that “Fast and Furious” is the bastard godson of the “War on Drugs”.
And no, I don’t favor drug legalization at this time – the welfare state must first be abolished, then you’re free to destroy your life as you wish. It is, after all, yours to do with as you will. But the “War on Drugs” targets the suppliers and the middlemen, it’s like targeting GM and a car dealer for speeders. If you drive 57 in a 55 mph zone then SWAT should raid the dealership instead of issuing you a ticket. It’s GM’s fault that you speed, it’s not your fault.
Another option is to end the welfare state and war on drugs at the same time, we can’t afford either, we cant’ Constitutionally justify either and neither one has or even can work.
How do they take down the deputy sheriff selling dope? I assume that is a sensitive case requiring special procedures put in place because it is a very common affair.
Ending the War on Drugs does not require legalization of drugs. It just means that we reverse the militarization of police departments that’s happened in the last twenty years.
Won’t help. The SWAT teams are actually needed – to take down heavily armed drug labs, holed-up criminals and the like.
What legalizing drugs would do is take the money out of the crime system. Just like prohibition in the first part of this century, it’s the illegal drug trade that works as the engine that drives everything else. Without that, the “kingpins” become little people – unable to afford armies of thugs and masses of automatic weapons to arm them with.
Crime, and organized crime, will be with us as long as there’s money to be made in illegal acts. But we don’t have to make it easy for them.
I’ll note that “Fast and Furious” is the bastard godson of the “War on Drugs”.
Then you “note” incorrectly.
the police can’t calmly knock on the door during the light of day because the criminal might, I type again might, attempt to destroy the drugs
That logic applies with equal force to many crimes, not just illegal drugs. The problem is not “the war on drugs”. The problem is no-knock raids.
I agree that SWAT needs to be done away with (by preference) or dialed wayyyyy back at minimum. However, what the other poster said was the original excuse for this sort of activity.
what the other poster said was the original excuse for this sort of activity.
False. No-knock raids have been around for a long longer than the “war of drugs”, which started with Reagan in the 80′s.
Yup!
The biggest problem with “legalizing drugs” is:
Once you legalize it, you have to control it. (licenses, etc.)
Once you control it, you practically own the industry (cigarettes, liquor)
Once you own the industry, you’re now the pusher.
The government, selling MY KIDS, pot, cocaine, ecstasy, heroin…
setting them up for a (short) lifetime of chemical dependency, misery and failure
“But daddy, its LEGAL, why are you such a SQUARE!?”
And the ones that say “we’ll never sell HARD drugs..never to MINORS” are the same ones who said “we’ll never abort late term LIVE children, OMG what kind of paranoia do you have?”
They lie.
So I say, “no” to anything they propose.
Because they lie.
I’m very sorry that you need a police state to keep your kids from doing things you don’t want them to do. Spanking seems to have worked with mine for the most part.
So then Al,
Just WHO’S children do YOU advocate we sell all the Government Controlled Heroin to?
AT what point (Second grade? Junior High?) does the Leftest Dominated State Educational System become obsessed with displaying, presenting and instructing CHILDREN in the use of all the required paraphernalia (syringes, rubber hoses, rolled up dollar bills?) just as they do with condoms?
We should tempt them, as part of an Official Program, with the “normalization” of recreational drug use, PROFIT from it (tax revenue?) then have the NERVE tut-tut the ones who succumb to its unavoidable horrors as “fools” who must have come from “bad parents”?
That sure sounds more like a POLICE STATE to me, than my idea that PARENTS should say just say NO to any Official Government Involvement in the distribution of Hard Drugs to our children.
But I’m not a Stoner…my quest for ever cheaper/easier highs doesnt cloud my judgement of basic good/bad/right/wrong like some folks.
Enough with the “it’s for the children” crap, Root ’83.
Drugs sell themselves. If you don’t want your kid on them teach them the downside. Show them the junkies. Shoot – just show the progressive pictures of the meth-heads. It’s called being a parent.
The rest of society can control the others by stigma. It’s how every society has worked in the past to control their peer behavior. The left has worked diligently to remove stigma. Society, as a whole, has a right to determine what it will and won’t tolerate. It really is time to shut the liberals down and make the determination ourselves what kind of society we want.
Both cocaine and heroin WERE legal and sold in drugstores befor 1920 or so and we had much LESS drug abuse
“the police must be safe at any cost”
IMHO, proper training, proper tactics, are the “any costs” we are talking.
Police waiting the proper time to serve warrant and knock doors, when time is available, is a cost it is proper to pay for the safety of the public and of the police officers involved.
What are the reasons officers are allowed to serve search warrants at midnight?
So they can justify the collection of overpay?
Just as photo and video cameras are becoming ubiquitous, also people in the near future will have surveillance equipment in their homes, not for the police or the government to watch them, but for them to check the home when they are away. There is little reason to believe they will turn off the recording when they are home after a short time. And this will bring many officers in jail because they will be caught misbehaving. Destroying evidences will work only a few times, then it will become impossible to do so (remote storing of data).
So, it is better the police start now to address the problem before the people start to address the problem.
Last thing. If the problem is not addressed properly by the police, people at the edge of the society first and others later, will start to address it in much personal ways. Some Breivik could think his duty and mission to payback the government oppressors for their transgression against the people or someone could go all Magua against the Grayhair. Or their could outsource the job to people like the Zetas.
Magua: When the Grey Hair is dead, Magua will eat his heart. Before he dies, Magua will put his children under the knife, so the Grey Hair will know his seed is wiped out forever.
Reflecting upon the arrogant, CYA attitudes of law enforcement agencies involved in these two (and myriads more) situations, and recalling the recent post by our own Jack Dunphy, I was reminded of this quote from Ayn Rand.
“Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent.” — Ayn Rand.
It’s been more than a month since Dunphy’s last article, and there’s been no trace of him here since. Apparently he’s still licking his wounds from the overwhelming verbal smackdown we dealt him.
Perhaps it is a shock for him to discover that he and his fellows has finally lost their base support. We’re not exactly the “hate cops” type of crowd. Most of us grew up believe the police were our friends and it has been a slow and creeping discovery that we, in fact, have a hostile standing army in our midst.
“Uh, my training kicked-in” is not a suitable excuse for soldiers… they’d wind-up in military prison and with a bad conduct discharge for doing stuff like that.
Earlier this year Indiana passed a law clarifying the rights of an individual when protecting their home. Lots of controversy and outrage. Where is that same sense of outrage around these incidents?
#8 LUSCOMBE FLYER
Does my heart good to see that aLuscombe is still in the air. I started flying with s Stinson 10b out of Teterboro airport I’ve worked my way up to an Aero Commander…unfortunately, its getting to be a wee bit to expensive to fly. Good luck
I started out flying a Luscombe 8A my Dad owned. At 16, I graduated to a Cessna 172 for my PPL. I gave up flying 15 years ago after my first heart attack, but God! how I miss it. Microsoft’s Flight Simulator is all I can do now, but I still have the memories from days gone by.
Why don’t you fly as a Sport pilot? No need for a 3rd class medical, and you can fly Luscombes, Champs, Chiefs, Cubs, and many other 2-place aircraft less than 1320lbs gross.
The legal theory is clear: If police intentionality kill a person who is exercising their constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, then it is premeditated murder. In many states, the penalty is being strapped down to a gurney and having a needle inserted into your arm.
I have a close friend who was, many times, a U.S. champion pistol champion; the man could do things at fifty yards that most surgeons, at two feet, could not. He told me that most police today, lack skills with tactical firearm usage. In earlier days, it was a factor in promotion, but management considers it a useless ability today.
Whenever shots, resulting in injury or death, are fired in a police action, the conduct of management must be reviewed. Not the shooter, the boss. His job must be on the line.
We must hold those who carry weapons, and are paid to do so, to a very high standard. Otherwise we are slaves, whose lives are worthless.
The ‘management’ in the Jose Gurerna case was Pima County Sheriff Dupnik. He jumped in front of any TV camera he could find and trashed Jose. He made up lie after lie to try to cover the killing of this innocent man. Watching the video of the killing of Jose is like watching a 3 Stooges movie. One can only think, “THIS cannot be happening in America!” According to the Warrant, Jose’s home was NEVER surveilled, including the morning of the killing. The killing of Jose Guerena and the cover-up by the Pima County Sheriff’s Department is beyond evil. There was, and is, no ‘management’ of the Pima County SWAT Team. Sadly, they are a mob of untrained, undisciplined people who answer to a Sheriff who has not a moral bone in his body. The citizens of Tucson should be frightened as they are all at risk!
Don’t forget the sealing of the subpoena by Judge Charles V. Harrington. You don’t seal something unless you have something to hide.
“He told me that most police today, lack skills with tactical firearm usage”
He spoke the truth.
Cops today are not what they were 40 years ago. I witnessed, as a Firearms instructor, the transition to Autoloaders from Wheel guns, from guys on the line being proud competent shooting professionals, to todays pathetically incompetent, yet somehow ARROGANT motherf#ckers, arguing with me that they know best, so I retired.
And, gee golly, a funny thing happened with Police shootings….
Average time of day, lighting conditions and distances are the same.
Number of shots fired by the perp (if any) are the same. Number of police hits on suspects?
Again, about the same.
Whats the BIG difference in the stats between Wheel guns and autos?
The number of shots fired by police.
It used to be 4-6 shots fired to get 3 hits.
Today its 10-15 for those same 3 hits.
Or 30, if your partner/backup starts shooting, the incident break that magic “5″ and the whole pathetic mess is then called “Half-ACED ” by the Weapons Instructors, who are forbidden to talk to the media to explain WHY so many shots get fired these days.
Hit accuracy USED to be just over 50%, which I ALWAYS believed was low and SHOULD improve.
But now its 50 or 60 shots fired, from a circle-jerk of incompetence and panic, with some of those guys emptying MULTIPLE MAGAZINES without hitting a damn thing. The dead “perp” having just 3-5 rounds in him from 1 or 2 of the 10 who opened fire. And no one gets disciplined for poor shooting, because the “event” was justified.
Its just sickening.
In most shoots, I’ll not second guess the DECISION to fire, because I wasnt there. The trigger men didnt choose the warrant, or the suspect, or the time and place to confront him. That was “given” to them, and too often THATS a bad call, which INCREASES the chance for confrontation(s) with homeowners with guns.
But once the first bullet flies, its the trigger men who control what happens next.
And, well…they just suck at it these days.
It is quite obvious that the New American World State is a fascist dictatorship where jackbooted thugs attack innocent citizens in order to i!nstill fear into the populace. There are still people who are supporting this police state and kissing the derriere of the thugocracy. Every district in this New Police State has been equipped with military type assault gear. And yes this began back at Waco when the Clinton regime ordered a military assault on the Branch Davidians who had not committed any crime prior to the attack. Ironic that Louie Freeh a member of this thug government has recently condemned a football coach for the actions of his assistant coach; Louie Freeh who saw nothing wrong with the killing of almost one hundred American children in Waco now steps forth as some kind of a champion. What a disgusting government! O tempora O mores; quo usque tandem abutere patientia nostra?
Thank you.
In both the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents the original complaint was a violation of the 1934 National Firearms Act, a tax law. At Waco there was a suspicion that they had been converting legal semi auto firearms to full auto without paying the $200 tax required. At Ruby Ridge Randy Weaver was suspected of cutting a shotgun barrel a quarter inch shorter than the legal limit, again without applying for the $200 tax authorization.
In both cases the authorities went in hot and when met with resistance escalated what should have been a simple discussion into a firefight.
great essay.
an underlying problem here and in all facets of society is the total lack of personal responsibility.
from this failing we get all the other failings.
this failing is getting worse …we hear it with the calls to ban guns. always trying to treat a symptom and never addressing the cause. in fact making the cause more prevalent. by again dismissing personal responsibility.
governments everywhere are are telling us what and how to act, subordinating personal responsibility.
GUESS WHAT THE RESULT IS ….people who lack responsibility.
when they (the government) take responsibility then the citizen does not and it is getting to the point that they can not.
This article becomes especially disturbing in the light of the tactic called SWATTING;
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2008/02/blind_hacker/?currentPage=all
Yes – this has disturbed me as well. So what happens to the “prankster” who makes these false allegations simply for the purpose of harrassing someone whose politacal views are dispised?
Good article,
… and these “police” tactics put cops at risk and ultimately reduces our respect for them.
I have known many police officers over the years. … and yeah, there were a few you would not want patrolling your streets at night. But most suffered from a thankless job in which every good deed was usually punished by an investigation or at least a trip to court to be reamed by some snot-nosed lib tard attorney.
The difficulties of the job have gone up – and the “professionalism” has gone down. Many police forces now see themselves at war against a community of them vs their community of us.
It would help if the lawyers were not against the police and serving the interests of criminals. Most lawyers think the criminals are the victims and the police should be punished for attempting to regulate their behavior. Thus we have endless code enforcement and inane silly laws intended to regulate those who are doing no harm. (the anglo saxon definition of a not-criminal btw)
We should also Reduce the size of police forces and their firepower. Not unilaterally of course – ideally we would actually enforce our laws and send violent criminals to heck – so the whole community knows an officer will be respected even if he becomes a victim – especially when he becomes a victim.
As for the drug gangs and dealers – Suffice it to say we have overcriminalized and over reacted. Which is not at all to justify the bloody crimes committed by these whacko’s … there’s just no space for a white paper on the issue.
The problem here is the war on drugs itself. It is the war on drugs which created the super armed drug gangs, which led to more violent crime, which led to the super armed police and swat units easy warrents and no – knock proceedures. Aside from violently resisting police and/or retaliating against police departments (which I do not support) the only other thing you can do is END the war on drugs and much of the other problems will take care of themselves.
The problem here is Republican and Democrat Progressives who love prohibitions and authoritarian government forces.
Outstanding! Funny how both hated the government for Tuskekeegee/syphalus experimeents and now love the authoritian nature it now assumes.
It is the war on drugs which created the super armed drug gangs, which led to more violent crime, which led to the super armed police and swat units
No, it was not. Two of the important events leading to a more militarized police were the North Hollywood Shootout and the FBI Miami Shootout. In both of these cases, the bad guys were bank-robbers, not drug dealers. In both cases the bad guys, armed with rifles, had the edge in firepower on the police with their pistols.
A lie gets half-way around the world while the truth is pulling on its boots ..
The war on drugs has nothing to do with the Florida case. That was a suspected murder.
The problem is poor training and bad protocols. The actual alleged crime is irrelevant.
Drugs, etc, were the excuse that started the bad training and extra legal punishment of people suspected of violating the law.
I serve as Village Administrator for our little town of 4,300, and as such am privy to and control spending for training of our police force. In 2011 a nut job with a rifle in a local trailer court barricaded himself in his trailer and threatened to kill anybody who approached. Our officers had entered the trailer court with warrant in hand to take the guy into custody. The perp fired one round during the entire ordeal, hitting only a police car. Our local force kept incident command of the scene, even though the county sheriff’s office and state patrol had officers on scene to assist if necessary.
After 3 hours of talking and patiently waiting as they had been trained to do our officers took the guy into custody without firing a shot.
Is our local force better trained than these trigger-happy SWAT teams in the big cities? I’ve said ever since the creation of the TSA and the other foolish responses to 9/11 that the terrorists won – we gave up our freedom to be left alone unless committing a crime, all to give fools a false sense of security.
Thanks. Good perspective, both locally and regarding 9/11
Whenever there’s a shooting, we get the usual Clueless, Whack-job, gun phobics crawling out from under their rocks, posting predictable, knee jerk responses. Typical examples: “Thanks NRA”. “Ban Guns”. “Repeal 2nd Amendment”. Less extreme: “To balance safety with gun rights, societies interest override “individual” right to own guns”. Sorry. That argument lost in “Heller v DC”. Yet they continue this Wet Dream, Delusional Fantasy of either a gun free society or one where such occurrences are preventable. What’s NEVER explained is HOW they’d implement this Utopian dream. Here are some “Inconvenient Truths” about guns: 95 MILLION gun owners. 1 in 3 homes has a gun. HALF BILLION guns in civilian hands. And these numbers grow rapidly as result of Obummer. So once again I offer this challenge to Delusional Wet Dreamers. Explain in PRACTICAL, REALISTIC terms how you’d implement this fantasy. Yet they continue believing such a society can be either peacefully disarmed, or socially “engineered” to prevent such occasional shootings. DREAM ON! Yes. There IS a social cost for an Armed, Free society. DEAL WITH IT! Don’t like it? … LEAVE!
For years I’ve offered the above challenge. So far no one’s successfully taken it. Perhaps the reason is, there is no answer; NO Practical, Realistic solution. So once again we hear from these Delusional, Utopian, Wet Dreamers only… SILENCE!
Why are we NOT surprised?
They believe that banning guns and confiscating 95,000,000 legally owned weapons only requires the stroke of legislator’s pen but that getting illegal aliens back on the proper side of the border is a logistical impossibility.
Slight correction. Last figures I’ve seen estimate between 250 and 300 million legally owned firearms in the hands of between 80 and 95 million owners. While many people own only one gun anyone who uses one for sport, hunting, or defense generally has three or more, so I’d say the numbers are ballpark close.
QUOTE: The first key to preventing unwarranted shootings is continual and correct training. This is expensive, but in the long run far less expensive than dead innocents and the millions cities will end up paying to grieving survivors.
The second key is careful selection, hiring, and supervision to ensure that amoral people never carry a badge and gun. Every police agency has officers that should not be police officers, people psychologically and emotionally unsuitable for the job. Every officer knows who they are, yet they continue to be employed, and they inevitably cause great harm.
/end quote
How utterly naive.
The municipalities have known this for DECADES. Their priorities are different and “public safety” isn’t one of them.
“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”
George Washington
The first step to a solution is eliminate police unions. As far as the unions are concerned citizens dieing is preferable to officers being held accountable and will fight to have the most dishonorable officer reinstated. Then whine the public dose not give the proper respect. The immunity from lawsuits for police officers individually needs to be revoked so that when a LEO breaks down the door at the wrong address and shoots someone they can be held personally negligent since his supervisors, the city or state are unwilling to do so. Finally crimes committed by cops should have a mandatory sentence of 5 or 10 years tacked on similar to using a gun during the commission of a crime no more we need to cut them slack because they were cops.
“When armies get big enough, they get used.”
Clinton’s 100,00 cops on the streets was about creating these SWAT teams in every municipality. Heavily-armed, paramilitary police in every community. Well, we can’t have these highly-paid, specially-trained people sitting around doing nothing, can we?
This is the standing army against which our Founders warned. Their only purpose is to be able to suppress a dissident populace, the purpose of any domestic garrison. This is why the Left pushed for more police, because they are not police, but garrisons. Just another form of gun control. Citizens with guns are a gross impediment to power, so they have to take away the guns, one way or another.
The way to handle this is to defund the SWAT forces. Reduce their numbers dramatically, and maybe put the few remaining under the FBI, to be called in only in extremis.
The 100,000 police Clinton discussed was really 20,000 funded by the feds (after having taken our money and “given” it back to the states of course) and the remaining 80,000 was to be funded by the states (using our money, again).
As for the “standing army”, I’m not so sure I concur with that characterization. They aren’t called the “thin blue line” for nothing. A small city of 100,000 in the metropolitan area near where I live has a total of 80 patrol officers (and 160 support staff I think). Divided up over 3 shifts, covering 7 days per week, this is probably only 20 officers per shift on average. Considering the amount of time it takes to file arrest reports, the actual number of officers who are literally patrolling at any one time is perhaps 17. That is not a lot of officers for a city of 100,000.
The advantage they have is the ability to bring all their resources and firepower to bear at one time against criminals, who don’t enjoy the support of the community. If however, the police are going to attempt to “suppress a dissident populace” as you suggested, the numbers don’t stack up very well if that populace gets even remotely organized.
I don’t have a sense of how the National/State Guards numbers work into that equation.
“If however, the police are going to attempt to “suppress a dissident populace” as you suggested, the numbers don’t stack up very well if that populace gets even remotely organized”
Yup.
Not that I agree they are “suppressed dissidents”, but aint it kinda funny how a few dozen/hundred of a certain kind of them can instantly push the Police into sheer panic/paralysis/inaction with a just a small riot?
Shows just how easy it is, but we with mortgagees, homes and kids (that we care about) have too much to lose gettin’ all riot-like…
Thats how they keep US in line…fer now.
Gotta say, as a holder of a concealed carry permit I’m a bit on the fence with some things in this discussion.
Legalizing drugs?
Wanna bet whether or not that shooter in Colorado was on them?
SWAT teams?
Vastly over-used for what historically were far lower key operations. Instead of a detective and maybe one or two uniformed officers serving a warrant, you now have SWAT teams being rolled out on the slightest pretext.
On the other hand, we DO have Islamic fundamentalists who have a stated goal of converting us or killing us – and who are more than happy to attempt the second option.
But do we then need TSA performing traffic stops in TN? No!
A bit of common sense would go a long way in resolving most of these problems, but I am coming to the conclusion that trait has been bred or conditioned out of the human race.
As for my concealed weapon, I am required by state law to announce to approaching police that I have it. Their reactions vary from casual “so what” to squinty eyes and an increased edginess that unnerves the hell out of me.
I can understand their line of work is dangerous. Ever notice they put their fingers or hand on the rear quarter panel of your vehicle when they pull you over? That’s their fingerprints they are leaving….just in case.
My policy, avoid law enforcement under all but the most dire of circumstances as much as possible.
There are plenty of good people in uniform, but unfortunately you can’t tell until it’s too late if the one you are dealing with is NOT one of the better examples of their profession.
“SWATing”
A tactic used by the Left to try and kill Conservatives vie a Police Raid
When did the SWAT team become the Death Squad?
When did “Officer Survival” become more important the lives of the Citizenry?
“Those entering police academies over the last decade are the first generation born into a computerized, predominantly visual world. For many, their introduction to a computerized world and the world of tactics is shoot-’em-up video games.”
Oh, God. You have GOT to be kidding.
The grip of a video game controller and the grip of a pistol are completely different. The motor skills involved in using them are completely different. The physical stance required to shoot a pistol is completely alien to anything you need for playing a video game.
And might I point out that the previous generations grew up playing at cops-and-robbers and cowboys-and-indians, and I’ve never heard of children developing complex rules to determine when it is and when it is not acceptable to fire their imaginary weapons.
Please familiarize yourself with some of the work of Lt. Col David Grossman, an expert in this area. Video games are excellent simulators.
Many police firearms instructors report a significant number of officers in today’s generation of young recruits who walk onto the pistol range, hold a real pistol in their hands for the first time and after firing a few shots to adjust themselves to the weapon are superb marksmen. When asked, almost all of them are avid players of point-and-shoot video games.
The simulation though is less about the physical aspects and more about the mental conditioning. TIme and time again, when juvenile mass murders were later asked why they kept shooting others after they killed their primary target, most reported they were on ‘autopilot’.
There has been significant research in the form of MRI studies on juveniles while playing violent video games. For individuals with previous prolonged exposure to violent video games, the mental activity had moved out of the more logical part of their brains. They were shooting on autopilot.
When they cross that invisible line and shoot the first victim they mentally earn their first point, just as the video game has trained them. Shooting another kid earns him a second point, and so on. The mother of the 13-year-old killer in the Jonesboro school shooting revealed that when she later told her son who he had killed that day, the boy laid is head on the table and cried, “Those were my friends.” He was on automatic pilot.
I’ll close with this: Up until 1968. a 12-year-old could order a gun out of the Sears Roebuck catalog and it would be delivered to his door. Yet the incidence of juvenile mass murder was non-existant. What has changed?
What has changed is Morality. We dont have the same one any more. We have succumbed to the pressures of The Left in our educational, information and entertainment industries.
Their philosophy, and the the mechanics constructed to support it is a failure. We are living in a state of that failure, square wheels on the wagon, and wonder why the ride is rough (or why we go nowhere at all)
As the root of they system is failure, all analysis of its current state will lead to false solutions (gun control, multiculturalism, etc).
If your design is based on lies you cannot now ADMIT were always lies, how can you possibly fix it?
As for video games and marksmanship, yes and no. Some of its introductory principals MIGHT be easier swallowed by, say 50% of the people who grew up pointing and playing with “realistic” toys…..
But my experience as an Firearms Instructor is that half of THEM developed bad habits that needed “un-teaching”, whereas the ones who did NOT play much shooting games had none.
And much more important than ultra precision shooting, it tactical preparedness. The physics/ergonomics of competitive level precision shooting are “nice” skills to have, but ONLY if you can do so QUICKLY, preserving the “meat” of the skill, reacting in what is more of a close-quarters martial arts fight that just happens to involve a gun.
Long, luxurious prep time, breathing control, heartbeat awareness and a delicate finger on a perfectly crisp trigger are fine things to experience and do well at…thay can be “part of a nutritious breakfast” but they’re not the whole meal
Again I must refer you to Grossman’s work. I don’t pretend to be an expert but he certainly is.
The video games provide stimulus-reposonse training. A target pops up, you have a split second to react. stimulus-response. stimulus response. The Nintendo game ‘Duck Hunt’ was such a good shooting trainer that the US Army bought several thousand of them. The replaced the plastic pistol with a plastic M16 and instead of ducks popping up on screen, the Army changed them to man-shaped silhouettes. It was a powerful combat simulator. stimulus-response. stimulus response. It took the thinking part of the brain out of the process of killing. stimulus-response.
In Vietnam and WWII most 18-year-olds reacted with nausea, trembling, and vomiting the first time they had to kill a man face-to-face in combat. They pulled the trigger, watched him fall, gurgle, bleed out and die, and then they promptly went somewhere and vomited. The second time the soldier killed it was a little easier. After several he could do it with no reaction. Today’s juvenile killer has already gone through that experience hundreds of times before pulling his first real trigger. He can kill instinctively, without thinking. stimulus response.
I will not try to argue that video games are any good at training the physical aspects of shooting (Though the US Army is doing so with great success). Video games however are excellent psychological trainers. When you and I played cowboys and indians, we went ‘Bang! Bang!’ but when someone got hurt we stopped. Now in a video game when someone gets hurt or dies we are rewarded with points and we keep going. Don’t stop to think, keep shooting. stimulus-response.
As a Former Marine Corps Weapons Instructor, my opinion of Army marksmanship is…well… not very high.
Perhaps its because we regularly train/shoot at more than TWICE the range of Army soldiers for the last 150 years that we’ve not had to worry about Marines locking up and puking at the sight of blood.
500 yards. Iron sights. Man size targets. Thats the “stimulus response” training we’ve been doing with a rifle forever. Master it, and everything else is gravy.
Solving the weak stomach situation you described is not part of our marksmanship program, because its not a weapons skill issue.
That is what the rest of our “Boot Camp” training regimen is for….the creation of a warrior mindset.
Pitty the Army’s recruit training system is so short in comparison, they would not need to experiment with so many bells and whistles later on to “re-fix” that which was not properly addressed in the beginning….
But their comparatively larger non-combat responsibilities, and just massive overall size, simply does not permit them focus on such basics as “kill the enemy without throwing up” in the Electronic Age, I suppose.
Cops feel victimized an underappreciated.
Cops have a distinct culture and often do not like to deal with outsiders.
They require a union because communists and racial warlords wish to destroy them.
However, with a union comes a union mentality, where people do not wish to accept responsibility for killing an innocent man.
Cops will do anything, ANYTHING, to hang onto that sweet retirment.
You have touched a very tender spot in my soul. I live in Arizona. My son is US Army Infantry. An infantryman who has survived two tours in Iraq has developed a tremendous reflexive ability to react to a perceived threat.
As an Infantry Dad, I have gained more than a passing familiarity with MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) and a US Army fire team’s Dynamic Entry tactics. A Fire Team is just four men. Aggressors are neutralized with TWO shots.
By contracts, here is a helmet cam video of the Guerena raid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP0f00_JMak
This is a bunch of bozos who are not even qualified and disciplined enough to carry squirt guns. My son – after just 14 weeks of basic training – is more qualified and disciplined than these guys.
I am pressing my legislators for legislation that codifies SWAT training requirements and lays out the specific conditions under which a SWAT call out can occur. I’m not however, optimistic that I’ll ever see actually enacted into law.
Sadly, the only way this will change is if the risk to cops’ lives gets high enough that individual officers start asking if there are better ways to approach the situation.
Training for government employees, including most cop training, is, shall we say less than demanding and is generally considered a perk as a week or two in a hotel for some easy training when the roll isn’t even taken gets you off the job but not off the payroll. There is some rigor in inititial, qualifying training because they generally want to eliminate truly unsuitable candidates – other than the ones that can’t be eliminated because the AA plan requires that they qualify. Once commissioned training is an employer paid perk that often gets you more pay as well. Most SWAT teams or their ad hoc equivalents get premium pay. Often the ad hoc SWAT team members have a regular duty period and the SWAT assignment is an overtime assignment often with a call-out premium as well. Most cop supervisors are overtime eligible as well, so calling the boys out on overtime often gets them the overtime pay as well. An excessive concern for officer safety may contribute to some of the excessive force, but an excessive concern for getting paid more contributes more.
Stated perfectly! Thanks for posting the video of the shooting….it says it all. I cannot recall there ever being a time in Tucson that there has been a true ‘need’ for a SWAT response. Thus, they use the Bearcat to do Search Warrants rather than using a couple of officers. Expensive to say the least!
Jose’s death was completely avoidable. Also avoidable was the trauma that his 4 year old son had to experience and will deal with the rest of his life. Every member of that SWAT Team was aware that there was no hostage situation and that a 4 year old child was left in the bullet riddled house. Not ONE of the officers had the moral fiber to try to help the child. That display of cowardice should, by itself, end all SWAT Team activity.
It would be interesting to know who you are contacting in Arizona to help with a law that would restrict the use of SWAT Teams.?
Maybe the solution is not training or picking the right people but doing away with SWAT operations in most cases.
After each of the shootings, A spokesperson states the officers acted properly
and the shooting was justified.
Can anyone tell me what would be unjustified?
Oh, that’s easy. Ask your friendly neighborhood spokesperson whether shooting a cop in self-defense would ever be proper and justifiable.
This is 1 of several reasons why I keep a loaded AK47 with the safety OFF & a .45 close at hand. Anyone forcing their way into my home unannounced or without lawful permission should be prepared for an UNPLEASANT surprise. Be assured there will be numerous corpses in my home after such an invasion, whether from cops or criminals. And as seen here, often the 2 are the same.
Let’s assume that everything up until the raid was done by the book. There seems to be evidence that it wasn’t, but let’s let the judge off with a warning on this one.
And let’s assume that the SWAT team knew with great certainty that their quarry was in the home. Why shoot the place up so badly and give themselves away? Why not surround it?
And for God’s sake, why leave Mr. Guerena on the floor for over an hour bleeding to death from gunshot wounds? That’s terrible malfeasance. Even if he appeared to be dead on the scene, at least make a call for an ambulance and attempt to render first aid.
There were a series of many mistakes made here. The leadership of this SWAT team needs to answer for this, and the members need to be retrained at the very least.
The judge should not be allowed off the hook. If he had bothered to read what he was signing, he might have noticed that it had been 19 months since the last surveillance of the property or the subjects listed in the Affidavit in Support of the (requested) Warrant. The judge should have gone after Officer Tisch, who wrote the support document, and told the officer never to bring such garbage to his chambers again!
The paramedics were denied entry into the house because the senior officers, realizing they had a huge problem, designated it a ‘hostage situation’. They needed Jose to bleed out. (The SWAT Team had no idea Jose was a Marine until his wife yelled it at them as they took her down.)
This is really an ugly story and the Pima County Sheriff’s Department is doing everything they can to make Jose and his family appear to be criminals. It is actually very frightening to know that these are the people we are supposed to trust.
SWAT: Special Weapons and Armed Terrorists.
I grew up in an America where police wore uniforms with pressed creases, ties and buffed shoes. They carried .38s for the most part and if things got out of hand then more muscle was called. Now… just kick in the door and start shooting with the full autos.
What the hell happened? These guys are not police. They are paramilitary and being used to murder Americans on nothing more than a signature from a dirtbag judge. And what happened? They shoot up the place knowing there is a wife and young child in the house. Everyone of these jack-booted types from the judge on down should be held for murder, reckless endangerment, endangering a child, and a host of other charges. Period.
I remember that America, Stargazer, and I miss it
What happened is kids started carrying machine guns, and society became so violent it takes more violence to police it. I remember carrying a revolver and I miss it also, the job was a whole lot easier back then.
You’d think that would make the news. Can you please provide a link to a “machine gun” being used in a crime here in the US? I’d really like to find out more.
Thanks,
Only one I can recall is the LA bank robbery where the two perps had illegally modified AK47s and body armor. Cops had to borrow hunting rifles from a local gun shop to bring them down.
There may be additional cases of automatic weapons being used along the southern border, but those are coming from cartel armories in Mexico, source either from overseas or the Mexican army.
Yes, that’s the only one I’m aware of, one crime, two criminals (neither were “kids”), almost 20 years ago.
Unlike, say back in the 1920′s and 30′s when folks like Dillinger, Kelley, and Bonnie and Clyde contented themselves with single-shot derringers for their crimes and the police carrying their .38 revolvers was enough until and unless confronted by more.
What’s clearly need here is more gun control! Then we can have crime- and gun-free cities like Chicago (now more dangerous than Kabul) and Washington DC!
Orion
What happened was that more and more people elected liberals to more and more positions.
Orion
No, they aren’t police; they’re a way to violate the Constitution’s prohibitions on using standing armies against the citizenry.
To add another log to the fire, Waco. Another totally unreasonable use of force by the ‘authorities’.
SWAT and the 2nd Amendment? Right. Let’s revisit that 2nd once again. I will conede and I’m sure many of us will, concede the fact that the 2nd was one of the many Grand Compromises that the Founding Fathers made in order to stitch the various states into a United States.
It is one thing to urge the citizentry to take up arms against the British Crown. It is quite altogether a different matter to urge the same patriots to surrender their weapons, just because some unknown politician in distant Washington desired so. They needed guarantees.
However, the 2nd has proved to be a nasty thorn, that few Dems or Reps could dislodge. They tried. The 2nd is all about the LEGAL ownership of guns. Their are a whole array of laws that make this difficult for law abiding citizens. Laws like a minimum waiting period or the provision of a residential address or a SS number. These laws do not apply to the ILLEGAL ownership of guns.
We have a Prez who is quite willing to bring a gun to a knifefight. Did he sound like a man who abhors guns. Bet your sweet batootie he doesn’t.
Those who want to repeal the 2nd are those who want guns. For themselves. And only for themselves. Go figure.
Respectfully, as I read the comments-many seem to get off the author’s topics and introduce tangential issues into the conversation. While each issue can be addressed in its own right, my primary response is to the author’s article.
That being said, the author correctly asserts gross mistakes apparent on the part of law enforcement in both the Guerena and Scott cases resulting in the unnecessary deaths of each of those parties. While it remains to our legal system to determine any criminal guilt or civil liability, I would put forth the following facts and circumstances.
There are over 700,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement (police if you will) officers across the entire United States population of approximately 315 million people. Police have millions of voluntary and involuntary contacts with the public each year, yet a very minute fraction of incidents result in a negative outcome but are representative of the professional jobs done on a daily basis by your police forces in America.
Police officers first take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and also the constitution of the state in which they are sworn to duty. Police swear to uphold all state and local laws (ordinances) as well and to execute those duties and responsibilities impartially.
Police officers do not make the laws they are required to enforce. Where discretion is allowable, officers should use good judgment within the “spirit of the law” to affect positive compliance. This may be through simple presence, a warning, or other action short of a summons or an arrest.
Over ninety percent of police contacts do not involve special units or SWAT teams. Special Weapons And Tactics (SWAT) and those similar purpose units were developed during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s because the growing civil unrest of that era produced organized domestic terror groups such as the Weather Underground, Black Panthers, and other anarchist organizations that committed crimes, and confronted police with superior weaponry. In other words, they (the law breakers) were using rifles, machine guns, and other military-style weapons against police who had a 6-shot revolver.
As time went on, the threats to the public and to the police changed to other criminal gangs, organizations, and individuals. SWAT use has become a preferred use by police administrators because, properly deployed, they REDUCE the incidents of violence.
Now, the key is “properly deployed.” SWAT should not be utilized for routine police work, to include service of ordinary arrest and search warrants. However, those resources may be used if the needs are warranted. A proper deployment will include advanced preparation and must include timely and relevant intelligence as to the potential threats to be faced, location, time of day, demographics, cultural considerations, and a host of other factors before use is authorized. Authorization should always come from a responsible command member of the department who is not part of the SWAT team.
These preparatory actions tend to significantly reduce the likelihood of a poor result and they should be part of an agency’s policy manual, something each officer should know. Additionally, each officer must have adequate training (up-to-date) in order to master disciplines and reduce liability-and eliminate poor incident outcomes.
In the Guerena case, it appears that the SWAT team lacked critical intelligence and preparation before the operation was implemented. Once on scene, the team deployed improperly losing the element of surprise. Cover and concealment should have been maintained and proper perimeter safeguards in place. None of this appears to have been done. The resulting weapons fire into a residence with an unknown number of persons inside in a residential neighborhood seems reckless at best.
The Scott incident demonstrates a seeming lack of ordinary patrol protocols and training in how to properly approach a residence at night. Had the officers maintained proper cover and concealment, tragedy might have been averted. Again, clear department policies and adequate training may have prevented both of these incidents.
While the police work very hard to do their jobs safely and effectively, like most hazardous jobs, mistakes do happen. Many times those mistakes result in an officer’s death-about 160 times per year on average. Many thousands more receive injuries, some very severe and debilitating. Good policy, training and tactics help reduce those deaths and injuries to both officers and the public they serve.
It seems that the brunt of the injury will be borne by those living in poor areas with underpaid/overextended police, and criminal/gang-member neighbors.
These areas can’t afford training, but desperately need more police on the street. I don’t see any solution because it’s a cyclical problem, the crime feeds both the need for more police, and a simultaneous drop in tax revenue as middle/working class taxpayers leave the area, and the criminal element becomes more entrenched.
Clearly more can be done though, but bad neighborhoods will continue to be bad in more ways than one.
“Competent”.
You use that word many times. I am afraid the same thing has happened to cops as every other bureaucracy. Once the State had to justify every single hire in order to defend itself against affirmative action lawsuits, they needed to find another way to not hire absolute morons, a way that had to pass muster with the courts, a way that could have ironclad evidence attached to each hiring decision. So, they started requiring advanced degrees in criminology or criminal psychology. Let the schools decide who was too stupid! We had nothing to do with it!
In response to this, universities, as is their wont, began offering streamlined (read dumbed down) credentialization courses. I have spoken with cops with Masters’ degrees, for Chrissakes, who couldn’t even speak coherently. Having an idiot given the power of life and death over his neighbors because he passed his courses with a C, after taking them 6 times, is not a wise thing. That’s why we have so many out-of-control steroid freaks on police forces today.
I am not indicting all policemen, by any means. I still occasionally meet a nice one, who approaches you with courtesy and calm, trying to help, not just fine or arrest, but it is far less frequent than say, 20 years ago, and when I speak with the nice ones, they usually bemoan their associates’ rudeness and boorish style.
They’ve become shave head, pumped-up, steroid monsters, and that’s the real problem. But they are all credentialed up the ass, so officially, they must be just fine. Just like the rest of government, where incompetents flood in, all with the proper degrees, foolishly granted by some gravy-seeking institution, yet without any ability to even communicate properly. Yet, we wonder why all around us goes straight to hell.
Right now, I’d rather take my chances with the Mafia.
How did we get from Alexander Hamilton’s Instructions to Revenue Cutter Officers (excerpt quoted below):
“…will always keep in mind that their countrymen are freemen, and, as such, are impatient of everything that bears the least mark of a domineering spirit… They will endeavor to overcome difficulties, if any are experienced, by a cool and temperate perseverance in their duty–by address and moderation, rather than by vehemence or violence.”
to Sheriff Dupnik:
“I don’t think anything was mishandled. Unfortunately, this individual points an assault rifle at cops. You do that, you are going to get killed. And the community has no reason to be concerned about it.”
A sheriff who doesn’t know what an assault rifle even is. Did the victim have an FFL? Did he have an “assault rifle” or an AR15? Words have meaning and the leftists readily ignore them to pander to the emotions of the ignorant.
Don’t forget that this is the same Sheriff Dupnik who said,
“When you have people like Sharon Angle, in Las Vegas, running against Harry Reid, making outrageous statements such as ‘We may need to resort to taking the second amendment into certain cases.’ And for people like Sarah Palin to say ‘We have people like Gabby Giffords in our cross-hairs.’ I think those statements are totally irresponsible and they’re not without consequences. And we are seeing them here.”
Seems like they’re setting it up so that if you see what may or may not be police at your door, you’re safer shooting FIRST as it’s fairly obvious if there’s more than 1 or 2 they’re there to kill you.
If you can at least create a ‘barricaded gunman’ situation and get some media attention, you might live to see a trial. From all these botched-raid stories coming out, it seems that you don’t have much chance of living past the encounter otherwise, and the cops won’t even have to deal with a paid leave of absence.
Orion
Well said.
It’s worth observing that in the Ruby Ridge case Randy Weaver was exonerated of all charges and paid a huge settlement for his damages and lost loved ones. Does not in any way shape or form make up for the shooting of his wife, son, and dog, but does point out the ultimate culpability in the case.
“In a free society, a society with a fundamental right to keep and bear arms, police officers believing they may shoot a citizen in his own home simply because he is carrying a firearm cannot be tolerated. ”
And in the two cases you cite? No punishment will be meted out and I’ll be surprised if the b*astards (yes, I called these killers b*astards) don’t receive commendations.
There is a serious attitude problem with our militarized police forces and that attitude is that they are “better”, more important, more valuable than ordinary peasants. Government at every level has lost its legitimacy and these kinds of murders by police are a significant contributing factor.
An instructor of police sciences once told me the police like to enter the home so they can define the home as a crime scene. Then all of the “evidence” is admissible. I suggested this was lazy police work.
And in my experiences, they respond to that with “yeah, AND?”
Only if it is open and visible with some exception for a search for weapons to insure “officer safety,” or at least that’s what the law says. But who are you going to believe about how the search went down, you’re lying eyes or the hero cop?
we should sell government controlled heroin to the same children we sell government controlled whiskey and cigars to .
If you want the world to be a better place, be the change you want.
Demand that your local government pass strict liability laws – mandate that persons and owners of property named in warrants automatically get a copy of the warrant. Mandate that judges are strictly liable for any mistakes in the warrant. Likewise mandate that the officials swearing to the veracity of the warrant are strictly liable for the contents.
If you don’t care enough to talk to local politicians, you don’t really care.
Sadly, no law can be passed that holds a judge even ‘responsible’ when he/she signs a warrant. The warrant that was signed in the Guerena case did not have even the hint of complying with Constitutional requirements. If a judge signs a warrant he/she can also seal that warrant and the return. Even the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) cannot require the judge to unseal the warrant and return. One has to go to a higher court and bring a lawsuit to try to get the information unsealed. Not an easy task!
71 shots is murder, plain and simple.
Especially when shooting an individual who presented no immediate threat.
If Sheriff Dupnik defends these criminals and refuses to file charges, then he, as their Commander, needs to live out his life in the same prison, as an accessory after the fact.
Dupnik is running for Sheriff again and will probably win. It is all about using the ‘power of the badge’, the media and having no moral integrity (telling lots of lies!) It also has to do with the public who do not care to take the time to require truth. Just accept what is fed through the news media.
So if cops are held to a higher standard why are none of these cops in jail? By any normal standard I or anyone else who did what these cops did would be rightfully locked up for murder. Seems to be the standard is cops can murder anyone they want and never face any real punishment. Welcome to the future, serfs.
As Glenn Reynolds has suggested, it is well past time to abolish sovereign immunity for SWAT teams and the judges who authorize their mistaken or negligently-performed raids. A surgeon who mistakenly amputates the wrong leg can lose his license and will almost certainly face a lawsuit and huge damages. It is time we hold the justice system and law enforcement to the exact same standard.
The militarization of our police forces has been occurring over the last several decades, partly driven by the “war on drugs” and other forces; it has now reached a dangerous state wherein many departments act more like an occupying army than officers of the peace protecting the welfare of their citizens.
Another analogy with the medical profession applies: doctors who make serious mistakes are sometimes protected by their peers, physicians naturally being disinclined to censure one of their own. This happeneds often-enough that physicians lost the ability to “police themselves” and saw that function pass to independent authorities, some of whom do not have the best interests of physicians or their patients at heart. This should be a cautionary tale to law enforcement – clean up your own messes, or an angry public will assign someone to do it for you.
Yep!
What was the squad’s understanding about when their shift would be over? I bet none of them wanted to end up working several hours late that night.
Have you guys not figured the whole system out yet…..Laws made by lawyers for lawyers……it is just that simple.
SWAT teams have been given a green light to trample the Constitution through
The Patriot Act. They can do pretty much whatever they want without repercussion. To compound the situation, people like Nancy Palosi have labeled citizens who don’t agree with her as terrorists. The left has labeled returning vets as terrorists. The Justice Department is under Barock Obama’s spell and only marches to his orders. The Chief law enforcement agency needs
To be separate from the WH cabinet with it’s own elected Attorney General not appointed by the President. When you have a tyrannical government and your own people in place, it’s the Fox guarding the hen house. This government is out of control and it’s up to us to fix it. Now, if you’ve been paying attention. Our President want to turn over our country’s sovereignty to the United Nations and allow them to redistribute our wealth, and technology. They are nothing but a bunch of thieves who’s members like Iran, Syria, Sudan who are notorious for violating human rights. Yet, they want to pass judgement of the United States, and our President agrees with them, Getting back to Swat teams contrary to popular belief, the Posse Comitatus Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order”; it simply requires that any authority to do so must exist with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress. In this way, most use of the Army and the Air Force at the direction of the President does not offend the statute, even though it may be problematic for political reasons. U.S. Northern Command was created by President Obama to cruise American streets during periods of “Civil unrest” while through Executive Orders he has taken control of all state militias.
I’m not sure where this all ends but we are in the beginnings of a Police State, when the drones start flying regularly and the planned NAFTY Highway linking US, Mexico, and Canada along with the merging of the intelligence data bases from each country, you will do what your told or else?
How did McDaniel have access to the LVMPD report while it was under court seal? Who did he get the report from?
And, again, no mention of the lethal level of pain killers in Erik Scott’s blood at the time of his death.
It should also be mentioned that if Guerena’s widow looked out the window, she would have seen several marked squad cars, flashing red and blue lights, men in the standard tactical uniform of the local agencies with “Police” emblazoned across the tactical vests of the officers. This is not to mention the siren that was sounded before the officers and deputies “knocked and announced.” Guerena chose to shoot it out with police plain and simple.
This case/article has nothing to do with the Erik Scott case from Las Vegas.
Jose Guerena chose to shoot it out with the police? That must be why he didn’t take his rifle off safe or fire a shot, and why he chose to “shoot it out” with the police in his underwear. The body armor about which the police made so much was stored in a box in his garage.