Another SWAT team abuse. Are we fed up yet?

[Rollory]

Because technically this isn't a Drug War thing. Though this sort of thing certainly was enabled by the Drug War.

Sequence of events:
1) Kid gets badly bruised by playing tag with a moving car.

2) Father - trained army medic - looks over the damage, decides it's not too bad, takes kid inside to lie down.

3) Nanny-stater neighbor decides paramedics must be called instead, and does so.

4) Paramedics arrive. Father informs them they're not needed. Paramedic forces his way into house, glimpses kid, decides based on that glimpse the full force of the state is required.

5) SWAT team arrives, busts down door, points guns in everyone's faces, handcuffs mother, kidnaps kid, takes kid to hospital.

6) Doctor at hospital examines kid, tells him to take some Tylenol and lie down, he'll be fine.

You're not competent to take care of your own kids. Only the state is. And they're not yours anyway, they're the state's.

http://www.postindependent.com/article/20080109/VALLEYNEWS/933433845/0/FRONTPAGE

"I was given a court order, and I really don't feel I have any choice but to comply with that court order."

Damn straight. And if he'd been given a court order to round up the blacks and jews and shoot 'em in the head, he'd have done that too, because orders are meant to be followed.

[ravenight]

Yeah, what the hell is the state doing trying to take care of kids!? A parent would never do anything against the interest of their child.

[Phil_Stein]

Ahh, another OUTRAGE!!!!!!!! posted on QT3.

Conveniently omitting about half the facts. Coincidentally, those facts make the issue far less inflammatory than the OP makes it out to be.

The boy had injured his face and head Thursday during some horseplay after grabbing onto the door handle of a moving car.Perhaps there might be a reason to be a bit concerned about the boy's health, or the family situation that allows this kind of activity.

"We have had encounters with him indicating that he's potentially violent, certainly agitating, confrontational," he said.

He said two Garfield County deputies arrived Friday before the AHRT and explained the warrant and that they would need to take the 11-year-old boy in for medical evaluation.

"He was rather vulgar in his response," Vallario said Tuesday. "I was given a court order, and I really don't feel I have any choice but to comply with that court order."
Perhaps the father's actions caused things to escalate a bit...

Vallario said Shiflett was arrested in 2005 on suspicion of felony menacing after chasing someone down the street with an ax.Perhaps the police wanted to play it safe with someone who was not the most mild-mannered neighborhood resident.

Look, I don't know all the facts here. It's possible the police overreacted. But it's also possible that their actions were reasonable responses to a difficult domestic situation. I know, I know, whenever the police intervene strongly in anything short of a multiple homicide, QT3 must be OUTRAGED!!!! Maybe we should reserve such outrage for cases where the facts are more clear cut and truly indicate a reason to be outraged.

[Anti-Bunny]

Ahh, another OUTRAGE!!!!!!!! posted on QT3.

Conveniently omitting about half the facts. Coincidentally, those facts make the issue far less inflammatory than the OP makes it out to be.
So true.. And HERE is the missing info:
The sheriff said the decision to use SWAT team force was justified because the father was a "self-proclaimed constitutionalist" and had made threats and "comments" over the years.

However, the sheriff declined to provide a single instance of the father's illegal behavior. "I can't tell you specifically," he said.

"He was refusing to provide medical care," the sheriff said.

However, the sheriff said if his own children were involved in an at-home accident, he would want to be the one to make decisions on their healthcare, as did Shiflett.

"I guess if that was one of my children, I would make that decision," the sheriff said.

But he said Shiflett was "rude and confrontational" when the paramedics arrived and entered his home without his permission.

How dare he.. uh.. believe in the constitution.. and be rude to paramedics forcing their way in... and.. uh.. wait, what are you saying now?

[Phil_Stein]

Anti-Bunny, I think 99%+ of the time, the parents' should be the ones making decisions in cases like this.

But there are instances where the parents should NOT be trusted. That's where the state can (and sometimes should) step in to help the children.

I don't know, for sure, if this case was one of those instances. But the story provides enough detail to at least suggest that this father was perhaps more than a little unconventional, and that the officials involved may have acted prudently, even if the end result was that the child did not need significant medical intervention.

As usual, we can add perspective by considering another scenario that might fit with the (limited) facts we have. Note, I am not saying that the following is what DID occur (the story does not fill in all the facts, and some facts seem to be in dispute). Rather, the following scenario MIGHT have occurred:

An 11 year old boy receives a head injury while engaged in dangerous activity, that his father who was apparently in the vicinity perhaps should have prevented in the first place. While the father only applies minimal treatment to the injury, a neighbor is concerned enough (perhaps based on past observation of the family), to notify the authorities, even creating a bit of risk for the neighbor himself/herself (the father has gotten into extended confrontations with previous people that led to the father chasing them with an axe.) The authorities are perhaps familiar with this family already. Perhaps there have been previous signs of sub-optimal treatment for the kids. They get a search order, because they suspect the father will shoe them off otherwise, and dispatch deputies to talk to the father to handle the matter calmly. The father curses at them and is uncooperative. The authorities escalate things, bringing in a SWAT team, because the authorities want to minimize the chance that less-prepared officers get injured, or that members of the family get injured. The show of overwhelming force (the SWAT team), enables the authorities to enforce the search warrant peacefully. Upon finally getting a chance to be in contact with the boy, authorities send him to be examined by a physician, who discovers, thankfully, that the injuries are not in fact all that severe.

[ravenight]

Read this story again with end result being that the kid needed emergency room care. If it still sounds like an out of control state, you need to lay off the crazy pills.

[Not One Of Us]

Read this story again with end result being that the kid needed emergency room care.
I've read the article and I can't find where it says that; the most on the kid's result was "The boy was examined and returned hours later with the recommendation to ice his bruises and take Tylenol."

[Anti-Bunny]

I've read the article and I can't find where it says that; the most on the kid's result was "The boy was examined and returned hours later with the recommendation to ice his bruises and take Tylenol."
I think what he's trying to say is 'think of the children!!! He COULD have been really injured!!!' Which sounds to me like 'they COULD have had WMDs all along!!!'

[Phil_Stein]

Yes, because the two situations are pretty much identical, right?

In fact, in any situation in which the government exercises caution, and then later realizes that the thing they were cautious about did not turn out as bad as it might have, we should all laugh and point and shout "No WMDs, no WMDs!!!!"

Or, perhaps, each situation is different, and you have to know the specific facts to render a judgment. Rollory presented only a few inflammatory facts and not the important ones that show why the authorities might have been justifiably concerned.

[MikeSofaer]

The key to this whole thing is whether Shiflett was properly informed that there was a valid warrant to enter and examine the child. There clearly was such a warrant, but it's not clear whether Shiflett was given the chance to comply with it after it was issued. He claims he was not, and the article doesn't say whether the Government claims that he was.

[Phil_Stein]

From the article:

He said two Garfield County deputies arrived Friday before the AHRT and explained the warrant and that they would need to take the 11-year-old boy in for medical evaluation.

It sounds like the government did try to explain things to him.

It's not entirely clear whether the visit described above was to notify him that SWAT would be arriving, or if it was an initial attempt to handle things in a lower key manner, and when it was unsuccessful, the SWAT team was brought in as a result. It's also possible, among other things, that the situation didn't go down as described in that quote (or that I'm misinterpreting things).

[Nathan Phoenix]

I hope the neighbor gets the bill for all of these services rendered.

[Siren]

Wow... I would hope that they were commended for being concerned about someone else's child's welfare. They saw what had happened, and thought the child needed more medical treatment than was administered. They were concerned, and took the appropriate steps to be sure that said child was properly examined. I find it admirable that the neighbor saw what they obviously felt was neglect and called.

IMHO, it's when people turn their heads and say "it's none of my business" that those people go from being innocent of any knowledge of abuse to being an enabler of the abuse.

[Midnight Son]

That's why I live far away from nosy neighbors.

[Aleck]

Yeah, what the hell is the state doing trying to take care of kids!? A parent would never do anything against the interest of their child.

I love the sarcasm.

I agree they went too far in this instance. But when I see shit like this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011001174.html), where a woman murders her four children and then lives with their corpses for several months, I wonder "where the hell was the DC government?" (or even a nosy neighbor, for God's sake).

[Rasputin]

So, for those in favor of this, what about parents who deny medical care for their children on religious bounds? Can the state bust in and take their children by force for that?

(Note: I think those people are crazy and kids dying because their parents can't grok the concept of science and reason is heartbreaking. But as far as I know, it's legal. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

[Midnight Son]

A lot of stupid shit is done in the name of religion.

[Hanzii]

So, for those in favor of this, what about parents who deny medical care for their children on religious bounds? Can the state bust in and take their children by force for that?

(Note: I think those people are crazy and kids dying because their parents can't grok the concept of science and reason is heartbreaking. But as far as I know, it's legal. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

They can over here and do (no need for SWAT, though) and I think it's the way to go.

Our laws are that you can kill your self by refusing treatment for religious reason if you're above 18 years old, but if you try to refuse it for your kids, the state takes them away - at least until the treatment is finished.

[Nellie]

See part of me is torn on the issue here. On the one hand perhaps it is better to make sure that a potentially injured child is ok. On the other sending in SWAT to do a Social Worker's job does seem a little extreme when there doesn't appear to have been any overt threat along the lines of "come near my house and we start a shootin'".

I'm totally at ease with forcibly removing kids from people deliberately withholding medical treatment because of Jebus but my namby-pamby wishy washy liberal opinion is that it should be Social Services doing it, not SWAT.

[Hanzii]

I totally agree and perhaps my parenthesis didn't express that well enough.

[Nellie]

It did from my pov, I just did my usual write a paragraph when a sentence will do and said the same thing I guess.

From the article, it's just not that clear how they came to a conclusion that a SWAT team was necessary when presumably a conversation with the paramedics goes along the lines of "I'm a trained medic, the kid's fine, he's got a few bruises and I've given him some paracetamol and an Ice pack, if he gets any worse I'll take him to A&E."

Personally I'd probably have let them see the kid anyway just because "We saw the kid, he's fine" looks better on a report than "Stroppy [medic] Dad wouldn't let us see the kid".

[Angie Gallant]

I have a friend who works for CPS in Texas. When he has to go knock on the door of someone who has previously chased people down the street with an axe, I do wish they'd send the cops first.

[Nellie]

Turning up with a Police Officer or two to check on the wellbeing of a kid because the guy has a "history of violence", especially when your police are routinely armed anyway is fine, sending in a Swat team to cuff and bag 'em first just seems a little overkill to me.

[Rollory]

I have a friend who works for CPS in Texas. When he has to go knock on the door of someone who has previously chased people down the street with an axe, I do wish they'd send the cops first.

Now that's just mind-boggling. Doesn't it matter in the least WHO he was chasing with an axe, or WHY?

If I agree with his choice of targets and his methodology in choosing them, then by damn he's the sort of guy I want at my back, and I'll be absolutely sure to avoid giving him any reason to chase *me* with an axe, because I understand that he has right on his side. This is *not* an attitude the police ever take, because the job of the police is not justice, it is enforcing order, and suppressing any disruptions at all anytime for whatever reason no matter the justice behind it.

[Anti-Bunny]

I have a friend who works for CPS in Texas. When he has to go knock on the door of someone who has previously chased people down the street with an axe, I do wish they'd send the cops first.
He wouldn't think sending in militarized police to break down the door wearing ski masks and aiming automatic weapons over a bruise is bullshit?

I honestly don't understand how some of you guys could be okay with this.. What happened to all the outrage over police state politics like the Patriot Act?

[Rollory]

So, for those in favor of this, what about parents who deny medical care for their children on religious bounds? Can the state bust in and take their children by force for that?

(Note: I think those people are crazy and kids dying because their parents can't grok the concept of science and reason is heartbreaking. But as far as I know, it's legal. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

The religious example is inflammatory. How about this for a more moderate version of the same thing. You've read the studies and you're convinced (note: I'm not, but reasonable other people are) that the small quantities of mercury in the flu vaccine do, in fact, have some link to causing autism in kids. More than that, you're also convinced (using the CDC's own numbers: http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/PREVIEW/MMWRHTML/mm5301a3.htm ) that the flu vaccine doesn't actually decrease the likelihood of getting the flu. So you decide your kids aren't going to be getting vaccinated. The state, in the interests of preventing the spread of a communicable disease that causes way too much trouble each year, decides you're a loony and your kids are damn well getting vaccinated so they don't punch holes in the effort to control the disease.

Does the state have a right to do that? From your POV, they are unnecessarily and forcibly endangering your children. From their POV, you are unnecessarily endangering other people, and they arrogate themselves the right to force compliance to fit the dangers they believe they see. The thing is, whose kids are they? Who has the final say over what happens to them?

[Hanzii]

The religious example was good, because people refusing blood or other treatment that is clearly lifesaving for religious reasons are without any doubt endangering their children.
Your example is much more iffy - allthough I thought the problem was with MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine and not flu. These diseases are deadly, the vaccines do work and if everybody complied we could stamp out the diseases.

But yet our nanny-state actually just had a courtcase end, where the conclusion was that doctors calling our equivalent to Child Welfare on parents refusing the vaccine was overstepping their bounds.
So even here we leave that choice to parents - in my mind the difference is when the danger to the child is emminent and the treatment they're refusing will save them.

[Anti-Bunny]

The Flu shot is an okay example, but here's a better one.. What if the single-father and their house mate turn out to be.. *gasp* a gay couple! Living in an area were that is considered 'morally objectable', CPS would have no choice but to make sure this environment is safe. But the father is also an ex-vet with a sign on the fence that says 'Protected By Smith & Weston', and for some reason he just doesn't seem okay with taking his kid away.

Call the SWAT team!

[ravenight]

Yes, there are extremes on each side: should the state protect children from sexual abuse? Should the state protect children from being raised Muslim? You can clearly find an argument that says the state needs to have the power to override a parent's wishes, and an argument that says the state shouldn't be able to override a parent's wishes. The point is that in each instance something different is going on, and just because you say that the police need to show up and handcuff everyone in the area if daddy takes off his pants doesn't mean that you believe they should put babies of a gay couple up for adoption.

In this case, any law that covers the situation needs to assume the worst because there is no harm in checking if someone needs medical care.

In a case where the proposed medical care had potential risks, it comes down to having government regulation of informed consent. Essentially, there needs to be a cut off where the risks associated with a particular course of treatment (or testing or whatever) require the signature of someone capable of giving informed consent. Again, mistakes can occur if the regulations lag behind research, but the alternative is to make children into slaves whose parents have the power of life and death over them.

[NoWayJose]

I think what he's trying to say is 'think of the children!!! He COULD have been really injured!!!' Which sounds to me like 'they COULD have had WMDs all along!!!'
This is a very apt analogy, and provides a lot of clarity and a fresh perspective from which to view the situation.

I would counter that if the police hadn't come to investigate the welfare of the child, it would be exactly like ignoring the humanitarian crises in Rwanda and Darfur.

[NoWayJose]

The Flu shot is an okay example, but here's a better one.. What if the single-father and their house mate turn out to be.. *gasp* a gay couple! Living in an area were that is considered 'morally objectable', CPS would have no choice but to make sure this environment is safe. But the father is also an ex-vet with a sign on the fence that says 'Protected By Smith & Weston', and for some reason he just doesn't seem okay with taking his kid away.

Call the SWAT team!
Can I play?

Okay, here goes: What if the dad was... *gasp* Darth Vader! And the police were Indiana Jones. And they were living on that mining colony from Outland? Not so clear-cut, now, is it?

[Anti-Bunny]

Okay, here goes: What if the dad was... *gasp* Darth Vader! And the police were Indiana Jones. And they were living on that mining colony from Outland? Not so clear-cut, now, is it?
But what if he was really injured, all along?!

[Anti-Bunny]

This is a very apt analogy, and provides a lot of clarity and a fresh perspective from which to view the situation.

Really? You mean, using a military force to subdue and/or capture residents in a potentially volatile area...? Instead of, oh I don't know, negotiating or using other non-violent means?

I would counter that if the police hadn't come to investigate the welfare of the child, it would be exactly like ignoring the humanitarian crises in Rwanda and Darfur.

Actually, that's a really terrible analogy. We have plenty of evidence about what's going on in Darfur.. On the other hand, it was based on speculation about the child's condition by strangers who hadn't even given the child as close a look as the parent, who had medical training.

[Phil_Stein]

Instead of, oh I don't know, negotiating or using other non-violent means?
Yeah, that's the ticket.


He said two Garfield County deputies arrived Friday before the AHRT and explained the warrant and that they would need to take the 11-year-old boy in for medical evaluation.

"He was rather vulgar in his response," Vallario said Tuesday.
(From the original article.)

[Anti-Bunny]

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Yeah.. the cops show up at your door and tell you they're going to take your child over a bruise that you knew was fine and could not possibly be construed as your own doing. No shit he was vulgar. I would be, too.

[Phil_Stein]

Anti-Bunny: They should negotiate

Me: Quoting where they did negotiate

Anti-Bunny: There was no need to negotiate

[Phil_Stein]

Also, Anti-Bunny, could you please quote your evidence (from the article or elsewhere) for "you knew was fine" after your child fell on his head in the course of playing with a moving car.

Just because the result was that he was basically ok is hardly proof that the father had reason to conclude that definitively. I kinda doubt the father is a physician. It's possible of course that the injury was so superficial that this may have been obvious even to an untrained individual, but the article doesn't directly speak to that possibility, one way or another.

[Anti-Bunny]

Really? Hmm..
"Shiflett also said authorities never told him they had a warrant, and he would have let them in if he did."

Also, Anti-Bunny, could you please quote your evidence (from the article or elsewhere) for "you knew was fine" after your child fell on his head in the course of playing with a moving car.

Just because the result was that he was basically ok is hardly proof that the father had reason to conclude that definitively. I kinda doubt the father is a physician. It's possible of course that the injury was so superficial that this may have been obvious even to an untrained individual, but the article doesn't directly speak to that possibility, one way or another.
The article states the father had medical training, which is further backed up by the doctor prescribing pretty much what the father did: rest and aspirin.

[Phil_Stein]

Well, if Shiflett said it, it must be true.

[Tankero]

NO U!

[Anti-Bunny]

Well, if Shiflett said it, it must be true.
Suddenly police aren't ZOMG FASCISTS anymore? Don't make me dig up the Taser thread.

I think this is more likely a case of "I knew AHEAD OF TIME that he wasn't going to be cooperative, therefore I feel justified by pre-emptively deploying the SWAT team to kick in his door"

[Phil_Stein]

Now we've got the SWAT team kicking in the door?

And suddenly, even Shiflett's own apparent acknowledgement that he spoke with the deputies is tossed out? I understand there may be some question as to what exactly was the content of the discussion between Shiflett and the deputies, but I don't see why you're erasing that conversation altogether.

[Phil_Stein]

If you're looking for ZOMG FASCISTS, I'm probably not your best bet. Also, I'd recommend some speculation about Taser usage.

[Stroker Ace]

Don't take my children at gunpoint, bro.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Rollory knows that when the police force can't maintain the high moral standards he demands, it's time to fall back on the Klan.

[Anti-Bunny]

Now we've got the SWAT team kicking in the door?
Yes? What do you think a SWAT team does? Knock first?

And suddenly, even Shiflett's own apparent acknowledgement that he spoke with the deputies is tossed out? I understand there may be some question as to what exactly was the content of the discussion between Shiflett and the deputies, but I don't see why you're erasing that conversation altogether.
I'm not erasing that conversation or saying it didn't happen. But to go from 'We'd like to you bring your kid in to the hospital for a bruise, which is probably a huge hassle for you not to mention expensive if you don't have healthcare insurance and by the way do it now or we're reprimanding you to the CPS (no thanks, he's fine, now get the fuck off my property)' to 'POLICE-GO-GO-GO-GET YOUR HANDS WHERE I CAN SEE THEM, MOTHERFUCKER!!!' doesn't strike me prudent use of force.

[NoWayJose]

Really? You mean, using a military force to subdue and/or capture residents in a potentially volatile area...? Instead of, oh I don't know, negotiating or using other non-violent means? Yes, really. Bombing a country, rolling tanks through the streets, allowing non-stop looting and the formation of violent militias, all the while torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib is EXACTLY like taking a kid to the hospital to make sure he's okay, even against the wishes of his crazy dad and his "medical training." It's a perfect analogy, you're a genius, this thread is OVER.

[Anti-Bunny]

Yes, really. Bombing a country, rolling tanks through the streets, allowing non-stop looting and the formation of violent militias, all the while torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib is EXACTLY like taking a kid to the hospital to make sure he's okay, even against the wishes of his crazy dad and his "medical training." It's a perfect analogy, you're a genius, this thread is OVER.
Maybe you should try comparing me to Hitler.

[NoWayJose]

Was he a genius like you?

[Anti-Bunny]

Next, compare me to Ghandi.

[Rasputin]

Thread title is fairly accurate, and I don't want to start another thread. Hence, WISE FWOM YOUR GWAVE!

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090201/ap_on_hi_te/tec911_swatting

Long story short, pranksters are now taking advantage of the militarization of the police by spoofing their caller ID to appear as being somewhere else, and putting in false 911 calls to get innocent folks arrested for kicks or revenge.

So in this case, the abusing is not by the police (the article's examples of the types of calls made could warrant SWAT response it seems) but by civilians.

Money quote: "Jason Trowbridge, one of the defendants currently serving a five-year sentence, told the AP in a series of letters from prison that the attacks started with the standard fare of prank callers — sending pizzas and locksmiths to victims' homes — escalated to shutting the power and water off and eventually led to swatting.

"Nobody ever thought anyone would get hurt or die from a SWAT call," he said."

What the hell is wrong with this guy?

[Anti-Bunny]

"Nobody ever thought anyone would get hurt or die from a SWAT call," he said."

No one ever thought a team of barely trained keystone cops running around with full auto weapons and breaking into homes would hurt anyone!

See also, the incredibly sad case of Ryan Frederick (http://reason.wikia.com/wiki/Ryan_Frederick).

[Demon G Sides]

SWAT Teams that aren't operating under stealth procedure are supposed to announce their intent upon entering.

Plus, who the fuck mistakes the sound of "BREECH!" as someone just invading his house?

Also to the before mentioned case: They were justified in bringing the SWAT team in; the man resisted police measures, potentially endangered a child (If my kid was fucking around with a car i'd bring them to a hospital as well, he could have had a concussion or worse; better safe than sorry), and was threatening (Vulgarity is considered a threat to Police) officers. If he had 'negotiated' as Anti-Bunny is advocating, he'd've spoke in clear tones.

You don't tell off cops, they are the law, and can fuck your day up (As seen). If he had been cool calm and collected and just let the paramedics check his kid out, this entire thing could've been avoided.

[Jason McCullough]

Do we have to keep repeating that being a dick to a cop shouldn't get you shot?

[Aeon221]

The only way I could see that as being funny is if you were sending the SWAT teams to other police stations. I think that'd be hilarious. But otherwise, not funny.

[Anti-Bunny]

Except, if you had read the article, it turns out the kid had some bruises and nothing more, so the parent was right.

Plus, who the fuck mistakes the sound of "BREECH!" as someone just invading his house?
That's a really weird argument.. I would think it's more proper to shout 'POLICE SEARCH WARRANT', but even then, that is not a magic phrase that only police are capable of pronouncing, and if they are shouting it in the middle of the night before breaking down your door, good luck understanding from the bedroom as it wakes you up.

[tromik]

I thought Phil was a conservative?

The SWAT team taking the kid was probably a bit over the top.

Sorry, did the paramedics force themselves in because the dad wouldn't let them see the kid?

[Anti-Bunny]

Sorry, did the paramedics force themselves in because the dad wouldn't let them see the kid?

Pretty much. The father was medically trained and wasn't interested in help with a few bruises. Call the SWAT team!

[Anti-Bunny]

By the way, this sheriff (original one from Rollory's story) is apparently a real piece of work..
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=Sheriff+Lou+Vallario

[Anti-Bunny]

Did I post this one yet? It's pretty awesome(ly terrible).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012302935.html

Summary: The police follow a package of weed to the wrong house, break down the door, shoot two dogs that were running away, and rough up/arrest the two residents.
"The guy in there is crazy," Johnson remembered a Prince George's County officer telling him when he arrived. "He says he is the mayor of Berwyn Heights."

"That is the mayor of Berwyn Heights," Johnson replied.

[Stroker Ace]

Aside from the now-familiar refrain of "SWAT breaks door down, shoots dog, terrifies family, has the wrong house" my second thought is "Wow, the mayor had a 32 pound box of weed." Is it just me or is that a lot of weed?

[Anti-Bunny]

Aside from the now-familiar refrain of "SWAT breaks door down, shoots dog, terrifies family, has the wrong house" my second thought is "Wow, the mayor had a 32 pound box of weed." Is it just me or is that a lot of weed?

Yes, it was a lot of weed. But apparently it was meant to be intercepted by a dealer working in the delivery company.

[Aeon221]

Aside from the now-familiar refrain of "SWAT breaks door down, shoots dog, terrifies family, has the wrong house" my second thought is "Wow, the mayor had a 32 pound box of weed." Is it just me or is that a lot of weed?

According to an economics textbook I have on the subject of illegal markets, 20lbs of weed about 2 years ago was worth 50 grand. So, yes, that is a lot of weed.

Furthermore, the weed was apparently delivered to them without them knowing the contents of the package and without them soliciting it so that the actual guy who ordered it could come get it before they knew what was in it.

[Demon G Sides]

Pretty much. The father was medically trained and wasn't interested in help with a few bruises. Call the SWAT team!

What part of "Court Ordered" do you not understand?

[Anti-Bunny]

What part of "Court Ordered" do you not understand?

Oh, I understand it quite well. And what a fantastic abuse of the court system that was.

[Tim James]

That's a really weird argument.. I would think it's more proper to shout 'POLICE SEARCH WARRANT', but even then, that is not a magic phrase that only police are capable of pronouncing...Actually, you now need a license in 16 states to yell 'BREECH!' when entering someone's home. Second-degree misdemeanor, so everything should work out fine.

[Lizard_King]

SWAT Teams that aren't operating under stealth procedure are supposed to announce their intent upon entering.

Plus, who the fuck mistakes the sound of "BREECH!" as someone just invading his house?

Who the fuck? Most normal people, that's who. At the very least, they have no reason to have any clue what's going on, particularly if they are innocent. The entry is designed to be psychologically paralyzing, and I don't think even your vast experience in video games could prepare you for what it's like to be on either end of it.

In most of these, there doesn't even seem to be resistance to police entry that makes for an additional dimension of paramilitary agony: it's just cops coming in at the level of aggressiveness usually reserved for after you draw contact of some form, or for a personally confirmed threat to your person (not just something that hurts your feelings because someone disrespects your sense of authority).

Also to the before mentioned case: They were justified in bringing the SWAT team in; the man resisted police measures, potentially endangered a child (If my kid was fucking around with a car i'd bring them to a hospital as well, he could have had a concussion or worse; better safe than sorry), and was threatening (Vulgarity is considered a threat to Police) officers. If he had 'negotiated' as Anti-Bunny is advocating, he'd've spoke in clear tones.
Vulgarity is not the same as a threat, and any police officer that says otherwise is more concerned about his own insecurities than enforcing the law. There are certainly cases where vulgarity can be included in a threat, but that's not the same thing. You don't get to wipe your ass with civil liberties after someone hurts your feelings simply because you can get away with a ridiculously "streamlined" court order.

You don't tell off cops, they are the law, and can fuck your day up (As seen). If he had been cool calm and collected and just let the paramedics check his kid out, this entire thing could've been avoided.
Cops are not the law: you're not supposed to watch Judge Dredd and mistake it for a plausible philosophy of law enforcement. Simply because you would prefer to cower through life rather than risk angering someone who is supposed to be a public servant because they might whimsically decide to abuse their authority is fine if you want to live that way, but don't pretend that's in any way something that is your civic duty. It isn't, and your attitude is not only an insult to people who are interested in being citizens, it should be offensive to any cop worth a damn.

And for fuck's sake, everyone, it's breach (http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/breach.html), no matter how many paramilitary aficionados say otherwise.

[Tim James]

And for fuck's sake, everyone, it's breach (http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/breach.html), no matter how many paramilitary aficionados say otherwise.Awesome, I learned something tonight. Breech is appropriate for a firearm, but not busting in on something.

[Rasputin]

Remember: It's a breach in the hull, and a hole in your breeches.

[Tim James]

Yeah but the way I read it, the breech in a firearm is technically a "hole in the hull" but it is spelled with the e since it is at the rear of the gun. This has nothing to do with this thread, just something I thought was interesting.

[salwon]

But whatever caused the hole did, in fact, breach your breeches.

[Pogo]

Cops are not the law: you're not supposed to watch Judge Dredd and mistake it for a plausible philosophy of law enforcement. Simply because you would prefer to cower through life rather than risk angering someone who is supposed to be a public servant because they might whimsically decide to abuse their authority is fine if you want to live that way, but don't pretend that's in any way something that is your civic duty. It isn't, and your attitude is not only an insult to people who are interested in being citizens, it should be offensive to any cop worth a damn.

A public servant that has to deal with the possibility that the person he is investigating may wish to kill him just for doing his job. A cop has any number of reasons to expect the worst in any given situation. Giving him shit or doubting his judgment isn't some brave act as a citizen, it's disrespectful. Going through life thinking every cop could be an asshole out to get you is like thinking every priest could possibly be somebody looking to molest your child. Those are both stupid presumptions, and the safest bet is just to not be a dick when dealing with cops.

[Destarius]

I don't know about all these 'Are we fed up yet' threads.

How many SWAT/police actions are there a day? How many of them are perfectly fine, and how many are a little borderline? How many are called into question by people who aren't even giving the cops a fair shake?

There's a lot of over-reaction. Even in the original article, it was the paramedics who first called it in about being worried for the kid. The occupant had the only felony case in the state for chasing someone with an axe. Deputies, not SWAT, had arrived earlier to speak to the occupant, with no apparent success. A court order to retrieve the child had already been issued, and I very seriously doubt that the deputies would have omitted to have mentioned that.

Sure, there's police abuse - like it or not, the police are composed of people, not ED-209s or Robocops. People have bad days, some people are nasty. I don't think the police are any exception. But to say that you are 'fed up' suggests some kind of systemic abuse, and I don't think there's sufficient evidence to suggest that kind of widespread breakdown.

[shift6]

Strart your own "fed up with fed up threads" thread, dammit. We're in here to laugh at dumb people! Like, wouldn't it be funny as shit if a pissed-off Christian Bale prank called the SWAT team to a house to tazer 8 kids in a clown-car vagina who just died from CO poisoning because they are poor and dumb?

ROFLCOPTER LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER HOLY SHIT I AM SO FUCKING SUPERIOR.

[Tim James]

But to say that you are 'fed up' suggests some kind of systemic abuse, and I don't think there's sufficient evidence to suggest that kind of widespread breakdown.This is getting a little meta, but the thread title did ask if we're fed up yet. You're not.

[rhinohelix]

On that WaPo article: This kind of crap has been going on forever. And by forever, I mean since the end of the Cold War left military looking for a mission and thinking the War on Drugs was the next big thing as well as local police forces upping the ante by adopting CQB techniques. I was studying and writing on the militarization of law enforcement 13 years ago in post-bac. Case after case after case. Shooting the dogs is what the cops tend to do first. Informed speculation is that the rounds the ATF fired at dogs in a kennel is what began the shoot-out at the former Branch Davidian compound in Waco in 1993. It was just a few years ago when a playful dog was shot by a policeman in a roadside stop that was highly publicized. Never are the police punished for these events.

9/11 and the election of GWB took some of the heat off the issue for the Right but cases like this should show both sides that while the motives may be noble, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Whether seemingly acting in a child's best interest or taking drugs that seemingly feed crime off the streets, the machinery of government will expand to the absolute limits allowed them, Javert-like in the pursuit of that mission, whatever it is. Stories will be bent to fit the mold of justification. I have seen this work both for and against society's interests. While there are circumstances which warrant acting outside of the rules, excesses such as these will always follow when the power of the state is not suitably restrained.

Count me amongst the fed up.

[shift6]

9/11 and the election of GWB took some of the heat off the issue for the Right but cases like this should show both sides that while the motives may be noble, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. While there are circumstances which warrant acting outside of the rules, excesses such as these will always follow when the power of the state is not suitably restrained. The machinery of government will expand to the absolute limits allowed them, Javert-like in the pursuit of that mission, whatever it is.
I was recently listening to an audiobook by some professor somewhere about the early American republic and he was talking about how political parties really first started to coalesce in the early USA. They all agreed on certain things, namely natural rights (in the newly formed Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc) and such, but they disagreed about how best to guarantee them. I suppose this is why we can refer to their views as federalist and constructionist and so on.

What a marked difference from today where even the ends are different, not to mention the means. Wouldn't that be great though: to have leaders who agreed on the goal and simply differed on how best to get there?

[Jason McCullough]

I was recently listening to an audiobook by some professor somewhere about the early American republic and he was talking about how political parties really first started to coalesce in the early USA. They all agreed on certain things, namely natural rights (in the newly formed Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc) and such, but they disagreed about how best to guarantee them. I suppose this is why we can refer to their views as federalist and constructionist and so on.

What a marked difference from today where even the ends are different, not to mention the means. Wouldn't that be great though: to have leaders who agreed on the goal and simply differed on how best to get there?

I don't think common ends and different means is achievable for a political system, except in extreme circumstances. The leaders of the early American republic were all united by their rebellion against Great Britain, remember; all the "don't rebel" people were in practical terms not part of politics, what with fleeing the country or staying out of sight after the rebellion. The answer to the great question of the day was decided, so all that was really left to argue about was tactics. It's pretty much of all the Republicans, or Democrats, fleeing the country after a civil war, leaving the people who largely agreed to argue about how to do a certain thing. Same deal for the Radical Republicans after the civil war.

[shift6]

A MAN CAN DREAM!

[rhinohelix]

I don't think common ends and different means is achievable for a political system, except in extreme circumstances. The leaders of the early American republic were all united by their rebellion against Great Britain, remember; all the "don't rebel" people were in practical terms not part of politics, what with fleeing the country or staying out of sight after the rebellion. The answer to the great question of the day was decided, so all that was really left to argue about was tactics. It's pretty much of all the Republicans, or Democrats, fleeing the country after a civil war, leaving the people who largely agreed to argue about how to do a certain thing. Same deal for the Radical Republicans after the civil war.

Really? I think that common ends and different means are exactly what we have, and have had for at least the last century, here in America. Republicans and Democrats both want better schools, healthy and successful lives, peace and prosperity, etc. for American and all Americans. Its how you get to those destinations that divide us.

[Tim James]

I don't think common ends and different means is achievable for a political system, except in extreme circumstances. The leaders of the early American republic were all united by their rebellion against Great Britain, remember; all the "don't rebel" people were in practical terms not part of politics, what with fleeing the country or staying out of sight after the rebellion. The answer to the great question of the day was decided, so all that was really left to argue about was tactics. It's pretty much of all the Republicans, or Democrats, fleeing the country after a civil war, leaving the people who largely agreed to argue about how to do a certain thing. Same deal for the Radical Republicans after the civil war.I'd say America and a lot of countries have had common ends and different means for a long time if you simplify it enough. Both parties, as incompetent as they seem at times, want to see Americans grow and prosper. It seems like the only time you don't see a common end is in backwards societies that set different classes or races against each other.

[Jason McCullough]

Really? I think that common ends and different means are exactly what we have, and have had for at least the last century, here in America. Republicans and Democrats both want better schools, healthy and successful lives, peace and prosperity, etc. for American and all Americans. Its how you get to those destinations that divide us.

I think you're overestimating how far the parties were apart and are even now, if they "really got their way".

Race: From 1865 to 2000 or so the gap between racial ends on the parties were stark, and only since then have they mostly headed together. I'd say inter-party goals on race didn't really die down until 2000, when finally the last of the old ex-Democratic racists in the GOP shuffled off.

Income distribution: From the early 19th century until 1950 the gap between the parties was large, and from 1970-now it's expanded again, to the point that the GOP talks about EFCA like it will be the death of civilization. Sure, sure, you can phrase the labor/capital conflict embedded in the union question as "how can we get rich?", but when the capitalists think the laborers should get paid starvation wages and be happy about it, and the laborers think the capitalists should be hung from a lamppost so they can get higher wages, there's no real common ends there to speak of. Obviously it's not that bad anymore, but that's an artifact of how rich we've gotten in the post-FDR era.

Family: The gap on gender roles is dying down, but the parties have diametrically opposite views on "what to do" with gay people. The GOP is starting to have the crazy shoved out of it; but they're still in the late-Nixon-on-race rearguard defense of a previously held awful opinion phase.

Foreign policy: Incredible inter-party conflict about the role of America in the world until after FDR. Like income, it's opening up again as the parties move farther apart.

Really, only in the post-FDR era where he crushed the GOP so badly they stopped arguing can you describe common ends without laughing, and in the last 30 years that gap has been expanding again.

Oh yeah: Lots of Democrats like me suspect the GOP is full of shit when they say they want to help the poor. Lots of Republicans suspect Democrats like me are full of shit when we say we aren't trying to destroy capitalism. That itself indicates there's serious disagreement about ends.

[Brad Grenz]

Don't listen to Jason. His mental well being is hinged upon the premise that Republicans are as alien to his own person as the laws of physics will allow. Were he to admit that he held a belief in common with someone like George Bush his head would explode, tearing the very fabric of the universe.

[Lizard_King]

A public servant that has to deal with the possibility that the person he is investigating may wish to kill him just for doing his job. A cop has any number of reasons to expect the worst in any given situation. Giving him shit or doubting his judgment isn't some brave act as a citizen, it's disrespectful. Going through life thinking every cop could be an asshole out to get you is like thinking every priest could possibly be somebody looking to molest your child. Those are both stupid presumptions, and the safest bet is just to not be a dick when dealing with cops.

Just like any other job where you have the option of using force to accomplish it, you need to gauge the situation you are confronting. The SWAT team in the mayor story had a more violent default setting than a squad of Marines in downtown Ramadi in the height of the insurgency. For a household with no prior offenders that they'd been observing all day, that level of unpreparedness is unacceptable.

There is no excuse for that. If you can't handle that level of risk (and I'm confident it comes from permissive leadership rather than the rank and file, who can be trained to whatever level they are needed at), you are unfit for public service. There are plenty of situations where cops look at their rules of engagement for a situation and make an honest mistake, and the lines between situations can get blurry. But when they aren't, the response to it on the part of citizens and other police should be focused on correcting whatever caused it, not rushing to rationalize it with stupid analogies.

This isn't about advocating disrespectful behavior to police officers, priests, or any other red herrings you want to bring in. It's about the fact that police have to gauge the actual threat at hand with every tool available and respond accordingly (perhaps even with a warrant in hand rather than one that exists hypothetically). They can't just get offended and operate on the extreme end of the level of force they have available. Additionally, paramedics shouldn't be calling in SWAT teams because nosy neighbors want kids sent to the hospital. I can't believe this is difficult for you to process.

[Lizard_King]

And just so it's clear, I think most police are very capable of meeting the standard I describe. But they need incentives, and part of that includes taking mistakes seriously and analyzing the procedures that contributed, vs turning everything into TEAM LAW VS TEAM CRIMINAL LOVER.

[Destarius]

This is getting a little meta, but the thread title did ask if we're fed up yet. You're not.

Oh, my mistake. I thought it was one of those rhetorical questions.

[Destarius]

Additionally, paramedics shouldn't be calling in SWAT teams because nosy neighbors want kids sent to the hospital. I can't believe this is difficult for you to process.

That's not what happened. The paramedics didn't call SWAT. SWAT was only called in after the deputies failed to enforce the order.

[shift6]

I'd say America and a lot of countries have had common ends and different means for a long time if you simplify it enough. Both parties, as incompetent as they seem at times, want to see Americans grow and prosper. It seems like the only time you don't see a common end is in backwards societies that set different classes or races against each other.
This is true in the sense that "grow and prosper" are pretty broad terms, so to that extent yeah I agree. The thing about the founders and the first parties is that their ends were somewhat more precise but that they took radically different paths to get there.

For instance, one group felt that a national bank fell under the "general welfare" clause of the preamble of the Constitution, and so that it should be established; the other felt that a national bank couldn't be established (not being a specifically granted power to the fed by the Constitution) and that the preamble doesn't carry the force of actual Constitutional Law. But both were looking at ways to regulate the economy, maintain monetary stability, etc. So this was a specific bullet-point issue that everyone agreed on, but with parties disagreeing on how to get there.

In a perhaps contentious point, the same applied to "integrating" American Indians into the new country. Everyone felt they should be persuaded to join up with the US, as the end goal; I'm not saying I agree, but this was a point on which the parties agreed. Some felt that force and display of power was the best way, others felt that trade and a gradual cultural assimilation (wherein the Indians would see that modern laws and rights were a better way) would be best. Unfortunately for all concered, especially the Indians, the former viewpoint won out although there are examples of tribes who assimilated into the US early on.

I agree with Jason that over time (perhaps starting around the 1820s) parties started diverging even on end goals. About this time also is where you start to see US politicians people "toeing the party lines" to support their side even if they don't personally support some particular issue, and where you start to see the party-diverging issue of state's rights v. federal authority, which of course leads to a dispute over slavery and the Civil War.

[Lizard_King]

That's not what happened. The paramedics didn't call SWAT. SWAT was only called in after the deputies failed to enforce the order.
You're right, that's completely different. I'm so glad you cleared that up.

[Destarius]

You're right, that's completely different. I'm so glad you cleared that up.

Yup, it is completely different.

[Ranulf]

SWAT Teams that aren't operating under stealth procedure are supposed to announce their intent upon entering.

Plus, who the fuck mistakes the sound of "BREECH!" as someone just invading his house?

Also to the before mentioned case: They were justified in bringing the SWAT team in; the man resisted police measures, potentially endangered a child (If my kid was fucking around with a car i'd bring them to a hospital as well, he could have had a concussion or worse; better safe than sorry), and was threatening (Vulgarity is considered a threat to Police) officers. If he had 'negotiated' as Anti-Bunny is advocating, he'd've spoke in clear tones.

You don't tell off cops, they are the law, and can fuck your day up (As seen). If he had been cool calm and collected and just let the paramedics check his kid out, this entire thing could've been avoided.

"Telling them off" can often just mean you're asserting your constitutional rights. They don't like trouble makers even ones who are obeying the law and looking out for their own interests. This usually means they're not sucking Judge Dredd's dick or licking his ass. Cops don't like that. Its means they have to think.

[Lizard_King]

Yup, it is completely different.

You do realize my focus was on the more recent news item, right?

[Destarius]

Which would that be?

[Lizard_King]

Which would that be?

The one I was responding to from here (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=1619557&postcount=60).

[Destarius]

The one I was responding to from here (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=1619557&postcount=60).

I was responding to what you said about paramedics calling SWAT. I tried to find it in your link, but I couldn't.

[Pogo]

Just like any other job where you have the option of using force to accomplish it, you need to gauge the situation you are confronting. The SWAT team in the mayor story had a more violent default setting than a squad of Marines in downtown Ramadi in the height of the insurgency. For a household with no prior offenders that they'd been observing all day, that level of unpreparedness is unacceptable.

There is no excuse for that. If you can't handle that level of risk (and I'm confident it comes from permissive leadership rather than the rank and file, who can be trained to whatever level they are needed at), you are unfit for public service. There are plenty of situations where cops look at their rules of engagement for a situation and make an honest mistake, and the lines between situations can get blurry. But when they aren't, the response to it on the part of citizens and other police should be focused on correcting whatever caused it, not rushing to rationalize it with stupid analogies.

This isn't about advocating disrespectful behavior to police officers, priests, or any other red herrings you want to bring in. It's about the fact that police have to gauge the actual threat at hand with every tool available and respond accordingly (perhaps even with a warrant in hand rather than one that exists hypothetically). They can't just get offended and operate on the extreme end of the level of force they have available. Additionally, paramedics shouldn't be calling in SWAT teams because nosy neighbors want kids sent to the hospital. I can't believe this is difficult for you to process.

Well-written, and I agree with you. To be clear, I was only responding to your opinion (and disagreeing) that citizens should be questioning a police officer's authority any time they make a judgment call, and not rationalizing systemic abuses like this.

[Lizard_King]

I was responding to what you said about paramedics calling SWAT. I tried to find it in your link, but I couldn't.

The paramedics directly calling SWAT was a mistake on my part. I still think it was a terrible call to make from the evidence on display, but it would have been worse had it been the way I was picturing. Uniformed policed should still not be calling SWAT because nosy neighbors want to send a kid to the hospital in that situation.

What I was saying was that I was mentioning the paramedic thing as an aside: the focus of my post was on the more recent event cited in the link.

Well-written, and I agree with you. To be clear, I was only responding to your opinion (and disagreeing) that citizens should be questioning a police officer's authority any time they make a judgment call, and not rationalizing systemic abuses like this.
Fair enough. I would say that most people would not have wildly different perspectives on this, but we're just going to run into outliers that radically derail the discussion every now and then.

Obviously, there are times when citizens should get in trouble for questioning an officer's judgment in the field. Many times, even. The issue that SWAT illustrates (and to a lesser degree some of the taser incidents) is the scale of what "trouble" means, and how there needs to be transparency around the continuum of force escalation that officers are employing. It seems like there are now a number of situation where uncooperative is being treated the same way as violent or dangerous, or where the default standard operating procedure (shoot the drug dealer's pitbulls!) is unacceptable, particularly when basic police work has gone by the wayside.

[Destarius]

The paramedics directly calling SWAT was a mistake on my part. I still think it was a terrible call to make from the evidence on display, but it would have been worse had it been the way I was picturing. Uniformed policed should still not be calling SWAT because nosy neighbors want to send a kid to the hospital in that situation.

What I was saying was that I was mentioning the paramedic thing as an aside: the focus of my post was on the more recent event cited in the link.


Oh certainly I agree with you on the later issue - the SWAT team seemed to have been keyed for extreme resistance (which was certainly not encountered).

However, I think in some other cases, there are certain people who over-react when SWAT is engaged. When cops show up with a court order against someone with a history of violence, it's pretty much grey whether SWAT should be called if that person refuses. That's when hindsight is 20/20 and all that jazz. e.g. Cops in paramedic case tried to enforce court order anyway and one of them gets his head lopped off with an axe. "Why didn't you try to get SWAT in if you knew he had a history?" etc.