4.5 SWAT Raids Per Day

silverharp

minor story but nice ending , at least in this case someone is watching the watcher

http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/01/45-swat-raids-per-day

4.5 SWAT Raids Per Day
Maryland's SWAT transparency bill produces its first disturbing results

Cheye Calvo's July 2008 encounter with a Prince George's County, Maryland, SWAT team is now pretty well-known: After intercepting a package of marijuana at a delivery service warehouse, police completed the delivery, in disguise, to the address on the package. That address belonged to Calvo, who also happened to be the mayor of the small Prince George’s town of Berwyn Heights. When Calvo's mother-in-law brought the package in from the porch, the SWAT team pounced, forcing their way into Calvo's home. By the time the raid was over, Calvo and his mother-in-law had been handcuffed for hours, police realized they'd made a mistake, and Calvo's two black Labradors lay dead on the floor from gunshot wounds.

As a result of this colossal yet not-unprecedented screw-up, plus Calvo's notoriety and persistence, last year Maryland became the first state in the country to make every one of its police departments issue a report on how often and for what purpose they use their SWAT teams. The first reports from the legislation are in, and the results are disturbing.

Over the last six months of 2009, SWAT teams were deployed 804 times in the state of Maryland, or about 4.5 times per day. In Prince George's County alone, with its 850,000 residents, a SWAT team was deployed about once per day. According to a Baltimore Sun analysis, 94 percent of the state's SWAT deployments were used to serve search or arrest warrants, leaving just 6 percent in response to the kinds of barricades, bank robberies, hostage takings, and emergency situations for which SWAT teams were originally intended.

Worse even than those dreary numbers is the fact that more than half of the county’s SWAT deployments were for misdemeanors and nonserious felonies. That means more than 100 times last year Prince George’s County brought state-sanctioned violence to confront people suspected of nonviolent crimes. And that's just one county in Maryland. These outrageous numbers should provide a long-overdue wake-up call to public officials about how far the pendulum has swung toward institutionalized police brutality against its citizenry, usually in the name of the drug war.

invinciblePRSTV

If you are going to spend x amount of taxpayers money things like SWAT teams then you may as well use them as much as possible, be a waste of money otherwise?.

Overheal

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

If you are going to spend x amount of taxpayers money things like SWAT teams then you may as well use them as much as possible, be a waste of money otherwise?.

The point I think being made by the article though is that too much money has been invested in them. That should have been invested in "Standard" Policing instead. How that happened is anyones guess but you can be damn sure it was probably SWAT teams and Chiefs who wanted to keep their jobs that had a hand in convincing the State and county Treasuries they needed more and more to operate.

If I have to issue an apology to SLUSK I'll be very disappointed.

invinciblePRSTV

Overheal wrote: »

The point I think being made by the article though is that too much money has been invested in them. That should have been invested in "Standard" Policing instead. How that happened is anyones guess but you can be damn sure it was probably SWAT teams and Chiefs who wanted to keep their jobs that had a hand in convincing the State and county Treasuries they needed more and more to operate.

If I have to issue an apology to SLUSK I'll be very disappointed.

But this is the USA, the home of over the top in your face policing. Winding down or reducing SWAT numbers would be politically toxic. The OPs post sounds suspiciously pinko liberal to me.

Overheal

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

But this is the USA, the home of over the top in your face policing. Winding down or reducing SWAT numbers would be politically toxic. The OPs post sounds suspiciously pinko liberal to me.

^ And that sounds suspiciously inflammatory...

But im talking about reorganizing the Police system wherein theres more stantard cops and fewer Special Ops/Tac units.

BluePlanet

But they get to gear-up and try out all the latest toys!
Nevermind that stuff about it being a cash-cow for the department.

This is about FUN damit!

invinciblePRSTV

Overheal wrote: »

^ And that sounds suspiciously inflammatory...

But im talking about reorganizing the Police system wherein theres more stantard cops and fewer Special Ops/Tac units.

Inflammatory? only if you have an easily offended disposition.... My point is that any attempts to reduce/close SWAT operations will be easy press for Law & Order types in the US.

I put it to you that any meaningful attempt to divert resources into 'standard' or community policing measures will be interpreted as a threat by politicians who are more interested in headline grabbing pronouncements to appeal to the always righteous silent majority.

BluePlanet wrote: »

But they get to gear-up and try out all the latest toys!
Nevermind that stuff about it being a cash-cow for the department.

This is about FUN damit!

Plus it makes great TV

Hagar

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

If you are going to spend x amount of taxpayers money things like SWAT teams then you may as well use them as much as possible, be a waste of money otherwise?.

By that logic they might as well launch those expensive nukes.

sink

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Inflammatory? only if you have an easily offended disposition.... My point is that any attempts to reduce/close SWAT operations will be easy press for Law & Order types in the US.

I put it to you that any meaningful attempt to divert resources into 'standard' or community policing measures will be interpreted as a threat by politicians who are more interested in headline grabbing pronouncements to appeal to the always righteous silent majority.



Plus it makes great TV

"All in the game yo, all in the game. "

silverharp

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

But this is the USA, the home of over the top in your face policing. Winding down or reducing SWAT numbers would be politically toxic. The OPs post sounds suspiciously pinko liberal to me.

the tagline of the website is "free minds and free markets" so I dont think its coming from the pinko liberal stable:D

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

reason.com ... 'pinko liberal'

yeah.....

--edit
damn, snap

Manic Moran

The point I think being made by the article though is that too much money has been invested in them. That should have been invested in "Standard" Policing instead. How that happened is anyones guess but you can be damn sure it was probably SWAT teams and Chiefs who wanted to keep their jobs that had a hand in convincing the State and county Treasuries they needed more and more to operate.

Which is fine, until you come across that one day of the year when you wish you had invested in a SWAT team because 'standard' policing isn't up to the task.

Standard police can't be used in SWAT situations. SWAT teams can be used for standard police duties. Seems a simple decision to me.

NTM

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which is fine, until you come across that one day of the year when you wish you had invested in a SWAT team because 'standard' policing isn't up to the task.

Standard police can't be used in SWAT situations. SWAT teams can be used for standard police duties. Seems a simple decision to me.

NTM

Yeah but busting down doors 5 times a day seems really unnecessary. Surely they could just leave the shotgun at home, and have it ready for the next homemade tank or bank robbery.


Notice how in movies their busting in on hostage situation or bank robberies not old ladies with a pound of weed or shooting up someone's dogs.

edit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzfLCudE3EI

I wouldnt have a problem if they want to re-train and re-specify the Role of SWAT, but as of right now they are operating out of - what it would seem - was their original mandate.

silverharp

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which is fine, until you come across that one day of the year when you wish you had invested in a SWAT team because 'standard' policing isn't up to the task.

Standard police can't be used in SWAT situations. SWAT teams can be used for standard police duties. Seems a simple decision to me.

NTM

I dont think anyone has a problem with the idea of SWAT units. However in this case 2 lives have been ruined because clearily the range of use must have ballooned since they were originally setup. No innocent member of the public should ever have to deal with such a situation and if they are being used in routine polcing it would seem to be a waste of money

Cuddlesworth

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which is fine, until you come across that one day of the year when you wish you had invested in a SWAT team because 'standard' policing isn't up to the task.

Standard police can't be used in SWAT situations. SWAT teams can be used for standard police duties. Seems a simple decision to me.

NTM

As a member of the armed forces I'm surprised you take this viewpoint. The training SWAT receives is not unlike the Army. They are thought to hit hard and hit fast using a excessive amount of force. This is a great strategy in the situation which calls for it, but the article clearly points out that this excessive force is being used for situations which call for a normal police response and a bit of restraint.

And I don't blame the Swat teams for the excessive force. Its was they are trained to do to save their lives.

Overheal

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

As a member of the armed forces I'm surprised you take this viewpoint. The training SWAT receives is not unlike the Army. They are thought to hit hard and hit fast using a excessive amount of force. This is a great strategy in the situation which calls for it, but the article clearly points out that this excessive force is being used for situations which call for a normal police response and a bit of restraint.

And I don't blame the Swat teams for the excessive force. Its was they are trained to do to save their lives.

Be nice to NTM, what he said is fair. But they do need to be trained with a capacity for much more Restraint. They are trained to go in with overwhelming force, shock and awe tactics, etc. from what I can observe. Rather they need to be trained better with a wider spectrum of responsiveness: not every situation need involve a battering ram and flashbangs.

Manic Moran

As a member of the armed forces I'm surprised you take this viewpoint.

One of the policies we have in the military is that everything is a training event. Even if it's just a simple non-tactical move from one base to another.

Bearing in mind that this is a nation where some 2/3 of the adult population own firearms, the simple act of serving a search warrant can very easily end up placing an officer in mortal danger. Sure, it's 'just' some pot, but how does anyone know that the person in question doesn't have some other skeleton that they're more afraid of? How many times do you see an incident on TV of a chap getting pulled over for a minor speeding offence or a broken tail light, only to have him take off on some ludicrously dangerous chase because he had comitted an offense which at the time the cop had no idea of.

So by using the SWAT team on such raids, (1) It reduces the overall threat to the police on at least one raid that day, and (2) provides good 'real-world' training for the SWAT team to keep their skillset up.

NTM

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

One of the policies we have in the military is that everything is a training event. Even if it's just a simple non-tactical move from one base to another.

Bearing in mind that this is a nation where some 2/3 of the adult population own firearms, the simple act of serving a search warrant can very easily end up placing an officer in mortal danger. Sure, it's 'just' some pot, but how does anyone know that the person in question doesn't have some other skeleton that they're more afraid of? How many times do you see an incident on TV of a chap getting pulled over for a minor speeding offence or a broken tail light, only to have him take off on some ludicrously dangerous chase because he had comitted an offense which at the time the cop had no idea of.

So by using the SWAT team on such raids, (1) It reduces the overall threat to the police on at least one raid that day, and (2) provides good 'real-world' training for the SWAT team to keep their skillset up.

NTM

Having provided the example above, why aren't traffic cops approaching all of their traffic stops with a gun at position? Maybe they should just pop their tires *just in case* the speedster has an outstanding warrant?

No offense to you NTM; you're a very knowledgeable and experienced Soldier. But there is a very clear set of good reasons you do not operate in Domestic Jurisdictions. Its simply the wrong the mindset for the application.

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

Having provided the example above, why aren't traffic cops approaching all of their traffic stops with a gun at position? Maybe they should just pop their tires *just in case* the speedster has an outstanding warrant?

You ever notice that an officer will approach your vehicle whilst carrying his book in his weak hand so his sidearm hand is free? He'll leave fingerprints on your tail light in case you vanish? That when they pull you over at night, they have 'take-down' lights on so that you have absolutely no visibility on where he is? You may know that you're only pulled over for a speeding ticket, but the cop is walking into the unknown and will use every tactical advantage he has. For example, many jurisdictions will approach from the passenger side no matter where the car is pulled over on the road: It's much harder for a right-handed seated person to draw a firearm to the right.

NTM

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

You ever notice that an officer will approach your vehicle whilst carrying his book in his weak hand so his sidearm hand is free? He'll leave fingerprints on your tail light in case you vanish? That when they pull you over at night, they have 'take-down' lights on so that you have absolutely no visibility on where he is? You may know that you're only pulled over for a speeding ticket, but the cop is walking into the unknown and will use every tactical advantage he has. For example, many jurisdictions will approach from the passenger side no matter where the car is pulled over on the road: It's much harder for a right-handed seated person to draw a firearm to the right.

NTM

Youve highlighted plenty of fair, strong yet subtle tactical advantages afforded to an officer... that Dont require the use of excessive force.

Technically, he's not using Every tactical advantage. I mean, he could just shoot out your tires and your dog in the backseat, asking questions later. Thats what the OP article implies of SWAT.

I shared this story with my boss who recalled one incident near his home town a few years back: the SWAT was staked out for Hours at one guys place. Threw a phone through the window and everything, place was surrounded, a neighboring home was commandeered as command centers. Negotiators on the Megaphone.

And the guy wasn't even in the fcuking home.

If you can train a Traffic Cop with all these little tricks and tactics and techniques - why not swat? Why do they have to crash through windows all the time? Im sure they could have crafted a dozen other more subtle ways to apprehend a suspect over a bag of weed than storming a house and making casualties out of it. In effect arent these just promoted officers with a special upper tier of weapons and tactics training?

Anyway I think we're getting ready to spin tires in this discussion, so lets tack on the rest of the OP article:

...These outrageous numbers should provide a long-overdue wake-up call to public officials about how far the pendulum has swung toward institutionalized police brutality against its citizenry, usually in the name of the drug war.

But that’s unlikely to happen, at least in Prince George's County. To this day, Sheriff Michael Jackson insists his officers did nothing wrong in the Calvo raid—not the killing of the dogs, not neglecting to conduct any corroborating investigation to be sure they had the correct house, not failing to notify the Berwyn Heights police chief of the raid, not the repeated and documented instances of Jackson’s deputies playing fast and loose with the truth.

Jackson, who's now running for county executive, is incapable of shame. He has tried to block Calvo's efforts to access information about the raid at every turn. Last week, Prince George's County Circuit Judge Arthur M. Ahalt ruled that Calvo's civil rights suit against the county can go forward. But Jackson has been fighting to delay the discovery process in that suit until federal authorities complete their own investigation into the raid. That would likely (and conveniently) prevent Prince George's County voters from learning any embarrassing details about the raid until after the election.

But there is some good news to report here, too. The Maryland state law, as noted, is the first of its kind in the country, and will hopefully serve as a model for other states in adding some much-needed transparency to the widespread use and abuse of SWAT teams. And some Maryland legislators want to go even further. State Sen. Anthony Muse (D-Prince George's), for example, wants to require a judge's signature before police can deploy a SWAT team. Muse has sponsored another bill that would ban the use of SWAT teams for misdemeanor offenses. The latter seems like a no-brainer, but it's already facing strong opposition from law enforcement interests. Police groups opposed the transparency bill, too.

Beyond policy changes, the Calvo raid also seems to have also sparked media and public interest in how SWAT teams are deployed in Maryland. The use of these paramilitary police units has increased dramatically over the last 30 years, by 1,000 percent or more, resulting in the drastic militarization of police. It's a trend that seems to have escaped much media and public notice, let alone informed debate about policies and oversight procedures. But since the Calvo raid in 2008, Maryland newspapers, TV news crews, activists, and bloggers have been documenting mistaken, botched, or disproportionately aggressive raids across the state.

Lawmakers tend to be wary of questioning law enforcement officials, particularly when it comes to policing tactics. They shouldn't be. If anything, the public employees who are entrusted with the power to use force, including lethal force, deserve the most scrutiny. It's unfortunate that it took a violent raid on a fellow public official for Maryland's policymakers to finally take notice of tactics that have been used on Maryland citizens for decades now. But at least these issues are finally on the table.

Lawmakers in other states should take notice. It's time to have a national discussion on the wisdom of sending phalanxes of cops dressed like soldiers into private homes in search of nonviolent and consensual crimes.

Radley Balko is a senior editor at Reason magazine.

I quite swayed to agree with the emboldened.

Now its not Fascist or anything, as some earlier threads have tried to engage the subject matter..... but it is a case of a power that has been left to grow unchecked with the police forces. Its pretty much an immutable law that as something gets larger and has more power (in whatever form) the checks and balances will need to become directly proportional to that force. And Ill take a shot in the dark at saying since the SWAT units were created in the late 60s, the rate at which checks and balances have been implemented for SWAT has been far outpaced by the rate at which they have been afforded authority.

"The purpose of SWAT is to provide protection, support, security, firepower, and rescue to police operations in high personal risk situations where specialized tactics are necessary to minimize casualties."

Manic Moran

Technically, he's not using Every tactical advantage. I mean, he could just shoot out your tires and your dog in the backseat, asking questions later. Thats what the OP article implies of SWAT.

Shooting out the tyres and your dog without something equating to probable cause is illegal. A SWAT team serving a warrant is not illegal, as sufficient cause must be demonstrated to the judge to violate the sanctity of a man's home before they can get the warrant in the first place.

Im sure they could have crafted a dozen other more subtle ways to apprehend a suspect over a bag of weed than storming a house and making casualties out of it

I can't think of any which establish positive control over the house, the persons and the evidence anywhere as quickly and efficiently. More subtle, sure. But most effective?

The correct solution is not to prohibit or restrict the use of SWAT teams, but to ensure that the police (Be they SWAT or not) are held properly accountable for avoidable errors. If this is done, then any purported reckless abandon with which the police to anything, just as with any other thing they (or any organisation) will do, will be curtailed.

NTM

Overheal

A SWAT team serving a warrant is not illegal, as sufficient cause must be demonstrated to the judge to violate the sanctity of a man's home before they can get the warrant in the first place.

The proposal for a Judge's signature seems to indicate that currently the SWAT units do not have to get warrants issued. Warrants are still issued by Judges?

ensure that the police (Be they SWAT or not) are held properly accountable for avoidable errors. If this is done, then any purported reckless abandon with which the police to anything, just as with any other thing they (or any organisation) will do, will be curtailed.

Agreed. In order to facilitate that I hope the transparency bills get passed through.

Manic Moran

The proposal for a Judge's signature seems to indicate that currently the SWAT units do not have to get warrants issued. Warrants are still issued by Judges?

They need the warrant for a law enforcement agency to go into the house. They don't need a warrant to have SWAT officers do it as opposed to any other officers. I'm not sure if there's a legal distinction between a judge and a magistrate in the US, usually a magistrate's signature is referred to for the warrant.

NTM

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

They need the warrant for a law enforcement agency to go into the house. They don't need a warrant to have SWAT officers do it as opposed to any other officers. I'm not sure if there's a legal distinction between a judge and a magistrate in the US, usually a magistrate's signature is referred to for the warrant.

NTM

Mmm, that does seem to be the problem alright; circumventing a major loophole in the paperwork by using SWAT for many things they really shouldn't necessarily be doing - or that they were intended to be deployed for.

silverharp

without meaning to sensationalize the thread I watched the following news reports as I think its useul to put a human face on it. Again I'll repeat my point that no innocent person should have to go though this. Using SWAT in a residential setting is just too risky for the general public.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORPk3udApZI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFnmZKl5WEA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVVos3fYGlI

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

Mmm, that does seem to be the problem alright; circumventing a major loophole in the paperwork by using SWAT for many things they really shouldn't necessarily be doing - or that they were intended to be deployed for.

No hole in the paperwork. It's simply a fact that most agencies do not have the funding to be able to hire a bunch of guys to sit around training house entries and not actually be on the street unless really needed.

Using SWAT in a residential setting is just too risky for the general public.

Isn't that where the houses tend to be?

NTM

silverharp

Manic Moran wrote: »

Isn't that where the houses tend to be?

no idea what your point is?

Hagar

All arguments are null and void in a country ruled by the Patriot Act.
God help them, they think they are protecting world democracy, who is protecting them?

Overheal

69 wrote: »

All arguments are null and void in a country ruled by the Patriot Act.
God help them, they think they are protecting world democracy, who is protecting them?

I'm not sure what the USA Patriot Act or Foreign Policy has to do with domestic Special Weapons and Tactics units. To the best of my knowledge The Patriot Act has never been cited as a Just Cause to conduct a SWAT raid on someone.

Manic Moran

Silverharp2 wrote: »

no idea what your point is?

Most raids tend to be on homes, because that's usually where suspects are to be found, and the evidence tends to be found there. Homes tend to be found in residential areas.

And surely your argument would go in favour of gaining rapid control of a situation as opposed to doing a more gradual approach which could allow the people inside to sieze some initiative and thus end up with a larger gun battle occurring in that same residential area.

NTM

silverharp

Manic Moran wrote: »

Most raids tend to be on homes, because that's usually where suspects are to be found, and the evidence tends to be found there. Homes tend to be found in residential areas.

And surely your argument would go in favour of gaining rapid control of a situation as opposed to doing a more gradual approach which could allow the people inside to sieze some initiative and thus end up with a larger gun battle occurring in that same residential area.

NTM

horses for courses. If we are talking about a known mafia hideout or safe house used by escpaing Bank robbers, I've no problem. However its a world away from say the 1st vidio I linked, where the police were looking for someone a burgler I think who "might" be there and "might" be armed.

edit - just to add that given that most Americans can potentially be armed then the logic would dictate that all people of interest should be arrested by SWAT tactics? Maybe just maybe law enforcement should not be dictated based on what is convenient for the police. The precautionary should surlely lie with the general public?

Hagar

Overheal wrote: »

I'm not sure what the USA Patriot Act or Foreign Policy has to do with domestic Special Weapons and Tactics units. To the best of my knowledge The Patriot Act has never been cited as a Just Cause to conduct a SWAT raid on someone.

The Patriot Act effectively totally undermines every single citizens right under the American Constitution. To give that much power to a Govt and think it won't be abused is fanciful. SWAT are being deployed on average 4.5 times a day in one State, God alone only knows how many times they are deployed nationwide across the 50 States. No offence but you won't know the number of deployments, the reasons for them or what laws are used to justify them. The US seems to be using what is essentially a para-military force to routinely police it's citizens. I don't think their Constituition allows that, I can only see it being done under the provisions of the Patriot Act and under the Act they don't have to give details and you can't question anything.

The USA is no longer the land of the free, it is no longer the great democracy the world looked up to. It is rapidly becoming a police state ruled by fear, and SWAT is one of the tools used to rule it.

My 2c.

silverharp

might ind this interesting, its a CATO Institute report so it will be fair:D



http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf

Exec Summary - Americans have long maintained that a man’s home is his castle and that he has the right to
defend it from unlawful intruders. Unfortunately,
that right may be disappearing. Over the
last 25 years, America has seen a disturbing militarization
of its civilian law enforcement, along
with a dramatic and unsettling rise in the use of
paramilitary police units (most commonly called
Special Weapons and Tactics, or SWAT) for routine
police work. The most common use of SWAT
teams today is to serve narcotics warrants, usually
with forced, unannounced entry into the
home.
These increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per
year by one estimate, are needlessly subjecting
nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and
wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having
their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually
by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units
dressed not as police officers but as soldiers.
These raids bring unnecessary violence and
provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many
of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors. The
raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly
target the wrong residence. And they have resulted
in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not
only of drug offenders, but also of police officers,
children, bystanders, and innocent suspects.
This paper presents a history and overview of
the issue of paramilitary drug raids, provides an
extensive catalogue of abuses and mistaken
raids, and offers recommendations for reform.

Overheal

69 wrote: »

The Patriot Act effectively totally undermines every single citizens right under the American Constitution. To give that much power to a Govt and think it won't be abused is fanciful. SWAT are being deployed on average 4.5 times a day in one State, God alone only knows how many times they are deployed nationwide across the 50 States. No offence but you won't know the number of deployments, the reasons for them or what laws are used to justify them. The US seems to be using what is essentially a para-military force to routinely police it's citizens. I don't think their Constituition allows that, I can only see it being done under the provisions of the Patriot Act and under the Act they don't have to give details and you can't question anything.

The USA is no longer the land of the free, it is no longer the great democracy the world looked up to. It is rapidly becoming a police state ruled by fear, and SWAT is one of the tools used to rule it.

My 2c.

Once again, the USA Patriot Act has never had to the best of my knowledge any bearing on the operations of Special Weapons and Tactics Units.

Lemming

Overheal wrote: »

Once again, the USA Patriot Act has never had to the best of my knowledge any bearing on the operations of Special Weapons and Tactics Units.

I think the point he's making is the ability to cite 'national security' as a do-what-you-want-no-questions-asked card by any government employee. All done under a veil of non-transparency.

I couldn't tell you how many/what/if/when SWAT teams have been deployed in such fashion although given the horrifying and disturbing ease with which the Patriot act can and has been abused in the past I would hazard a guess that more than a few have been on such grounds. For (easy and obviously contrived) example, a civil servant in the IRS doing a tax audit can legally request and retrieve your medical records or your library activity under the auspices of 'homeland security' using the act despite the fact they have no business doing so.

But anyway, the point that 69 was making (I think) was that the act allows for near unquestioned activity with near (if at all) zero oversight.

SteveS

You also have SWAT being used to take a man into custody that hadn't even done anything yet.

Radley Balko has a good book out on this subject: Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America. It seems to me that they are being overused, though I will admit that I am not an expert on law enforcement. That being said, I know a few cops that are on their department's tactical teams. Both are people I wouldn't want to be on their bad sides. There are certainly situations where they are needed, but I question the need to use them to arrest non-violent drug offenders.

Manic Moran

You also have SWAT being used to take a man into custody that hadn't even done anything yet

Insofar as the perceived threat was 'man with grudge purchases firearms for potential shooting spree,' then the use of SWAT as opposed to non-SWAT seems quite appropriate. As far as arresting him at all, no matter what unit did the arresting, that's a different matter entirely and seems inappropriate.

NTM

Hagar

Lemming wrote: »

I think the point he's making is the ability to cite 'national security' as a do-what-you-want-no-questions-asked card by any government employee. All done under a veil of non-transparency.

I couldn't tell you how many/what/if/when SWAT teams have been deployed in such fashion although given the horrifying and disturbing ease with which the Patriot act can and has been abused in the past I would hazard a guess that more than a few have been on such grounds. For (easy and obviously contrived) example, a civil servant in the IRS doing a tax audit can legally request and retrieve your medical records or your library activity under the auspices of 'homeland security' using the act despite the fact they have no business doing so.

But anyway, the point that 69 was making (I think) was that the act allows for near unquestioned activity with near (if at all) zero oversight.

Exactly.

BluePlanet

The answer of this quandry is surely to upgrade all police forces to SWAT.
As MM points out, every time the police are called, it could result in some sort of violence or threat of violence.

Therefore, there is no longer any necessity for ordinary police units.
They may as well be relegated to rent-a-cop roles, like you see loitering around shopping malls.

Upskill or be made redundant.
Your choice!