New at Reason
Radley Balko testifies about the militarization of America's police departments before the House Subcommitte on Crime.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Other Matt | July 2, 2007, 3:43pm | #
Missed one. At least I didn't see this one in VA. If I screwed it and you did pick it up, then consider it reinforcing your point as it's directly there. Re: Fairfax County Police standard practice is to use SWAT teams in the execution of search warrants. which was the trouble to begin with.As I recall, the officer was covering him with the muzzle, though he was unarmed, and "...the gun just went off". I also recall it was a 45, which given that the standard issue in the county is 9mm, it was probably one of the macho have to have a 1911 clone types. There is simply no excuse for it.
Warren | July 2, 2007, 3:53pm | #
What no Q&A? Darn! I really had my hopes set onseeing the word 'Asshat' in the transcript. Even so,
Radley Balko is the Greatest American Hero - Believe it or not :)
Andrew | July 2, 2007, 3:55pm | #
Other Matt -- Radley has reported extensively on that case.Brilliant commentary as always Mr. Balko. Would love to see any Q&A you got. Hopefully it wasn't as ridiculous as what you heard in the online gambling hearing.
jimmydageek | July 2, 2007, 4:04pm | #
Watching the news this morning on Bay News 9 (a Tampa area station) I saw a story that showed NY officers stationed at one of the major NY airports with full automatic weapons. If this isn't a prime example, I don't know what is. The story didn't mention if they (the officers in the airport with full automatics) were a specially trained unit, or run of the mill cops. Either way, I think it's only a matter of time before a serious "accident" occurs in which many "civilians" get injured. It is unfortunate.The same story also reported that cops near Tampa International were randomly pulling over cars and searching them - in my opinion, a blatant civil liberties violation.
:- | July 2, 2007, 4:18pm | #
I don't mind seeing cops out in the open, doing legitimate cop work. I do mind when they bust my door down at three in the morning. There is a difference.jimmydageek | July 2, 2007, 4:31pm | #
So, you consider random stops and searches "legitimate cop work"?LarryA | July 2, 2007, 4:37pm | #
Military-grade semi-automatic weapons, armored personnel vehicles, tanks, helicopters, airplanes, and all manner of other equipment designed for use on the battlefield is now being used on American streets, against American citizens.Quibble: I don’t believe there are any “Military-grade semi-automatic weapons” in the active military armories except the service pistol. Military hand-me-down M-16s, submachine guns, etc. are full auto. Local officers and departments can, of course, purchase the semiauto versions, as can the rest of us.
Particularly in rural areas a semiauto “assault rifle” makes sense for law enforcement, as problems are often outside shotgun range. They should not be used for SWAT raids except under extreme circumstances.
Overall, you said what should be said. We note the massive coverage given the issue by the MSM. ;-|
Kap | July 2, 2007, 5:36pm | #
Radley,What is the prevalence of successful lawsuits stemming from botched raids? Are administrators starting to see the error of this on purely liability grounds? Does police immunity play into this, and is it automatically forfeited in the case of a wrong address or bogus informant?
Gray Ghost | July 2, 2007, 6:49pm | #
Excellent work, Radley. You're doing a fantastic service for us all. Thank you.For the VA residents out there, what peculiarity of your local politics do you think inspires the use of SWAT teams to serve all search warrants or fining someone ~$3000 for speeding on the interstate? I've lived in places I thought were extremely pro law and order (Williamson and Harris counties, Texas) and I can't see even those places adopting such tactics. I'm genuinely curious.
M | July 2, 2007, 10:05pm | #
Well roared, Lion.h-dawg | July 2, 2007, 10:58pm | #
Radley, you are the MAN. Big woof for you.soulrebel | July 2, 2007, 11:16pm | #
f@#* the police.You have so much to be proud of Radley Balko, keep up the great work!
Other Matt | July 3, 2007, 5:06am | #
Other Matt -- Radley has reported extensively on that case.Andrew-It isn't represented on the map referenced, at least that I could see. Poit is that as bad as it is, it's actually worse.
JohnD | July 3, 2007, 8:55am | #
Hey Jimmythegeek, the Supreme Court considersrandom stops and searches "legitimate cop work".
All of you anti cop types... next time you are getting robbed cal a freaking pothead or a Reason "journalist" instead of a cop
Morons
"Ian Graeme" | July 3, 2007, 9:23am | #
Evidently, someone has a reading comprehension problem; the article shows how the raids committed against innocent civilians have been the product of a mindset. The same kind of mindset that excuses unwarranted, humiliating and often deadly f**k-ups committed against 'civilians' as being somehow hunkey-dorey. A mindset that should never be excused when exhibited by police against their own civil populace...who also happen to be their paymasters, a point too often forgotten by many civil servants.After all, I thought we fought the Cold War to prevent that kind of thing from happening here in the States. Or was every military veteran of that period wrong to think so?
Other Matt | July 3, 2007, 9:36am | #
All of you anti cop types... next time you are getting robbed cal a freaking pothead or a Reason "journalist" instead of a copOr shoot back yourself, better still.
Semi Auto rifles for police do have a place. It is not on a typical run of the mill warrant service. Shotguns don't penetrate body armor, but do a wonderful job of spider cracking a windshield making the driver have to put a prime target out the window to see.
Particularly in rural areas a semiauto “assault rifle” makes sense for law enforcement, as problems are often outside shotgun range.
I'm sorry, but this is kind of bullshit. First bullshit is the term "assault rifle", for a semi auto. That is a full auto, but I digress.
If it's a long distance, one should be using a longer range accurized rifle, which may or may not be a semiauto. This is insensitive to rural or urban, though, a policeman should simply not be shooting at someone at "rifle required" distance unless it's a tactical sniper. The problem is that you can't see details at that distance, and you really don't know if someone presents a threat for the most part. Shotguns are fine for warrant service, as are handguns.
The idea that things are different between rural and urban life threatening situations is kinda bullshit.
xylotops | July 3, 2007, 10:12am | #
It's been bugging me for years that police officials commonly refer to the general public as "civilians." The very first time I noticed it alarms went off in my attitude analyzer because to make such a distinction tells me that the policemen so speaking consider themselves at least "non-civilian", which leaves what? Military. So I, the civilian, am under military control in my own country.I don't think so!
Dee | July 3, 2007, 10:30am | #
"All of you anti cop types... next time you are getting robbed cal a freaking pothead or a Reason "journalist" instead of a cop.At least this way you can get high and chill out after being robbed. The cop on the other hand will not get you high nor will he do anything more than the pothead to apprehend the violators. So just go with the pothead.
Personally I have never had a cop do anything for me but write me a ticket in their role of Collector and Preserver. The odds of a cop catching anyone without pulling them over by chance is slim to none. Call a cop and tell them you were robbed. They will write the report and get back to you if they learn anything. Don't hold your breath. Unless you called the pothead then hold it in a bit for maxmimum affect.
I love you morons that think cops are the saviors or us all. Please get real when the shit hits the fan no cops is ever around and its you on your own to fend for yourself. Which they try to make more and more difficult by disarming the honest people while for some reason at the same time upgrading their own weapons. Now if I need no weapon according to you and you need more weapons according to you how can this be. They tell you crime is down and your safer and all that BS yet they keep re-arming themselves for something, buy why when crime is down and we are all safer.
I guess as long as the elusive criminal pothead is lurking around none of us is safe.
Walter E. Wallis | July 4, 2007, 10:24pm | #
The argument for no-knock are almost all BS. A forcable entry into an innocent address should result in the planners and the judge having to pay damages out of their personal funds. The danger to the cops from a bust-in are too much to justify it. Ideally, in a dangerous situation, I would suggest armored vehicles front and back, then a phone call or bull horn to explain the warrent.Jim Anderson | July 5, 2007, 2:12am | #
I was pleased to see that a person of Mr. Balko's prestige is talking about the SWAT raids and attendant problems.It is an area that is basically untouched by the media.
Another area on which I have never heard reporting, and at which Mr. Balko might look, is the psychological effect of violent television and movie productions on youngsters intending to become police officers and those who already are officers.
We know that criminals are inspired by television, etc., and that people undergo physical reactions when watching such shows.
I would like to know if there have been any studies in this area.
If, for instance, I met a cop who told me he was inspired to become an officer by having watched "The Shield," I would figure I was talking to a sociopath.
Sincerely.....Jim Anderson
"The Climbing Monkey," at politicslawandculture.blogspot.com/
Mike | July 5, 2007, 9:03am | #
I was going to write a legitimate reply to this article until I noticed that no one would pay any attention. Anyone that has no better comment than F**k the police and talk about smoking weed while protecting your home I won't waste my time or your ridiculous waste of comment page.john | July 5, 2007, 1:17pm | #
One major reason for the vastly increased plain thuggishness of too many police today is that people (especially conservatives) almost reflexively support them, however outrageous their conduct. One hears the almost droning cant "They lay their lives on the line for us every day," repeated endlessly in their defense.Oh, really? Statistically, police work is one of the safest jobs there is. With over a million sworn officers in this country, about fifty a year are killed by an assailant, with about eighty more dying "on duty" from a variety of other causes. These range from traffic accidents, having a heart attack, choking on a donut, etc.
Police work doesn't make into the top fifty of hazardous occupations, and when called upon to risk their lives police sometimes show little inclination to do so. Who can ever forget the images of those 400 SWAT team members, outfitted like 82d Airborne troopers, cowering outside Columbine HS while two deranged children, armed with a 20 gauge shotgun and a .38 Special revolver, went about their slaughter? Or the municipal cop who was there when it started and ran away after exchanging a few shots with the killers, noting indignantly that "I'm not paid to do this."
Or the campus cop who was on hand but declined to intervene at Virginia Tech because he didn't have his body armor? He did, of course, have his pistol. Perhaps he was concerned that the killer had one.
Cops do deserve our support, but not our tolerance for illegal, brutal, or derelict behavior.
Alopekos T | July 5, 2007, 9:22pm | #
The article is excellent. People who love liberty better wake up to the standing army that is being formed right under our noses.I have noticed that younger police officers, especially state troopers, are looking much more buff and bigger than the average citizen. I've seen guys who have builds like pro wrestlers. I sometimes wonder if there are a few potential Chris Benoits among them.
Nobody Important | July 6, 2007, 9:17am | #
JohnD | July 3, 2007, 8:55am*sigh*
All of you anti cop types... next time you are getting robbed cal a freaking pothead or a Reason "journalist" instead of a cop.
Morons
This is a variation of an argument I hear a lot at places like Cop Talk.
Where is it written that if somebody does not like, does not respect, has issues with, or is critical of law enforcement that he forfeits the right to use a government service that he pays for?
It's one of those debating points that only an authorimorontarian would make, because a few seconds of thought -- as opposed to groupthink -- would reveal what's wrong with it.
The critic of the police loses something (police "protection"), and the police gain something (less criticism).
A more rationale trade-off would be "I will give up my right to use law enforcement services if law enforcement gives up its authority over me." (of course, this is not practical either).
But the LEO-bots never suggest that, because like any bureaucrat, they crave the power that continues to corrupt them.
Dagwud | July 6, 2007, 11:38am | #
Point of Information: It's Eastern Kentucky University at which one can find Professor Kraksa. There is no "University of Eastern Kentucky".Just because University of Kansas refers to itself as KU doesn't mean the rest of the world follows suit. (heh.)
I'm not sure I understand the concern over the "militarization" of police forces. Based on the testimony Mr. Balko gave, I saw no indication that innocent civilians are any more likely to be hurt or killed in erroneous (or correct)raids by SWAT teams than by regular police carrying standard issue weapons. I suppose it's possible that a larger percentage of people die from being shot by SWAT police than regular police due to the more powerful weapons SWAT police carry. However, Mr. Balko didn't mention that. Also, is there any proof that a SWAT team is any more (or less) likely to raid the wrong house than a regular police team? It seems to me that this is more of a concern over the symbolism of the militarization of the police than any factual evidence that this makes the miltarized police teams more prone to fire their weapons, raid the wrong house, violate civil liberties etc. than the regular police.
Jacob Smith | July 6, 2007, 8:41pm | #
Peter Kraska has made a very good living at his "research". Albeit flawed, but research. Generally, people fail to understand that the society we live in today requires the tactics that the police use. Oddly enough, most people don't know that the tactics used by our military in urban enviornments were developed by civilian law enforcement. Also, military surplus 5.56 rifles are SAFER than the police issue pistol or shotgun. The anti-establishment types rattle their swords at the same dribble from Kraska and his mopes. But they are so misinformed that its not even funny. A good place for them to start is by getting a clue of what they speak of. However, knee jerk reactions and speculation is what pays their bills, gets their names in the papers. Good job, boys, continue to misinform.JHoward | July 7, 2007, 10:48am | #
Maybe the last two commenters should get together to get their stories straight. Remember to bring a copy of the 4th Amendment if you do, boys. I mean, should any sense emerge.Given that now (1) we're apparently LEGALLY justifying military force against US citizens by way of it's claimed lower likelihood of holing some old lady's chest cavity and (2) that we're establishing that the RIGHT to use military force is based on it's claimed field superiority over non-military force against TODAY'S US citizen, I suspect a little constitutional pre-authority just might tend to clarify things for you intellectual colossuses.
Or not.
Sgt Michael Moyle | July 7, 2007, 3:54pm | #
So what part of my job is routine? Answering barking dog complaints or the "routine" drug offender that may be carrying a firearm? We all know how much criminals pay attention to the probation or parole conditions. SWAT, CERT or any other form of Special Weapon Teams are part of progressive law enforcement today. By all means, if we could get the criminals to become non-violent then I would agree, we would not need these special teams.If it were not for the surplus military equipment at reduced rates or the free items, many of the local agencies would have nothing more than what law enforcement had 30-40 years ago- not much!
If we could get the liberal judges to deal with criminals as the title describes, then the police would be dealing much less with repeat offenders and give you something else to whine about. Otherwise, let the men and women of law enforcement do their jobs! And by the way, we do make mistakes, we are human also!
anonymous coward | July 8, 2007, 10:11am | #
Otherwise, let the men and women of law enforcement do their jobs! And by the way, we do make mistakes, we are human also!Humans are held accountable for their mistakes.
Law Enforcement Officers -- who often claim to be "held to a higher standard" -- are frequently not. Even when those mistakes involve the death of an innocent person.
J Golden Rockwell | July 8, 2007, 7:01pm | #
Archer: The problem isn't that SWAT teams are more likely to raid the wrong house -- it is that SWAT tactics are more likely to bring improper procedures.Consider how different things would have been if the kgBATF had knocked on the door of Mt Carmel, instead of trying to blast their way it (remember, Koresh had invited them to come out and look around, which other agencies had done).
Once you are locked into the SWAT mindset, you are more likely to make mistakes. You're armored up, the adrenaline is flowing, and you are psyched into "game mode," like a kid buried in his X Box shoot-'em-up.
On a LEGITIMATE use of SWAT, this is an acceptable risk -- the situation is already out of control, and it's your job to prevent it from getting any worse. But when the cops are the ones who escalate the situation out of control in the first place, but launching a SWAT operation when it's not necessary, how does this benefit anyone?
Sgt Moyle: NEARLY ALL of your job is routine. Take off the RoboCop helmet and look around. The thing that you spend the most time doing is filling out reports. Most of the handful of duty-related deaths of officers are in TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, and most of the injuries are from dealing with drunks or family disturbances.
Yet, more and more, SWAT teams are making mistakes which devastate the people you are supposed to be protecting from harm! Give me a number -- how many innocent people do you think should be killed by cops in any given year? And do you really think that the number who ARE killed will go down if there are more SWAT raids?
Look at your buddies over in the Fire Department. They don't call in airborne water drops every time they get a call to a field fire -- they assess the situation, then call for "Flying SWAT" when they need it.
So, decide who you want to be -- Pete Malloy or Sledge Hammer.