Police Militarization in the US

[Pertinacious Tom]

Police Militarization in the US

The American Civil Liberties Union has released the results of its year-long study of police militarization. The study looked at 800 deployments of SWAT teams among 20 local, state and federal police agencies in 2011-2012. Among the notable findings:

• 62 percent of the SWAT raids surveyed were to conduct searches for drugs.
• Just under 80 percent were to serve a search warrant, meaning eight in 10 SWAT raids were not initiated to apprehend a school shooter, hostage taker, or escaped felon (the common justification for these tactics), but to investigate someone still only suspected of committing a crime.
• In fact, just 7 percent of SWAT raids were “for hostage, barricade, or active shooter scenarios.”
• In at least 36 percent of the SWAT raids studies, no contraband of any kind was found. The report notes that due to incomplete police reports on these raids this figure could be as high as 65 percent.
• SWAT tactics are disproportionately used on people of color.
• 65 percent of SWAT deployments resulted in some sort of forced entry into a private home, by way of a battering ram, boot, or some sort of explosive device. In over half those raids, the police failed to find any sort of weapon, the presence of which was cited as the reason for the violent tactics.
• Ironically (or perhaps not), searches to serve warrants on people suspected of drug crimes were more likely to result in forced entry than raids conducted for other purposes.
• Though often justified for rare incidents like school shootings or terrorist situations, the armored personnel vehicles police departments are getting from the Pentagon and through grants from the Department of Homeland Security are commonly used on drug raids.

As the bolded bits show, as if it needed showing again, no-knock SWAT raids are about preserving drug war evidence at the risk of human lives. They are not about preserving lives in the vast majority of cases.

 

[4ktsb]

Give it five years, the warrant will become a Hellfire missile.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

The end result of using war to keep the economy going is having a bunch of military equipment for local law enforcement when we no longer need it for playing in the sand.

 

[tuk tuk Joe]

Cool...

 

[mikewof]

Good job on this thread Normy.

Left, right and center, there is critical danger from civilian law enforcement having the tools and mindset of forces which operate outside of civilian jurisdiction.

 

[Jim M]

Here's an interesting military piece of hardware that will be tethered over Maryland for testing. Civil liberty activists are concerned that they will be fitted with cameras to track individual movement. With the ability to see an individual at 340 miles I would say their concerns are definitely interesting. The have become famous for snaring Army Staff Sergeant Robert Bates slaughtering 16 civilians in Kandahar in 2012.

Controversial surveillance blimps that can spot a person 340 miles away have been unveiled by military firm Raytheon.

It boasts the project can offer '360 degree 24/7 surveillance for 30 days at a time' - and revealed the US Army has already bought two.

One is being trialled over Maryland, with the other being kept in 'strategic reserve'.

By putting JLENS in strategic reserve, the Army is giving combatant commanders around the globe the ability to pick up the phone and, in short order, receive this incredible air defense capability in their area of responsibility, said Raytheon's Dave Gulla, vice president of Integrated Defense Systems' Global Integrated Sensors business area.

The system is called JLENS -- or Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System -- which is composed of an integrated radar system on two tethered, 80-yard blimps.



The blimps fly at altitudes of 10,000 feet above sea level and remain aloft and operational for 30 days, enabling the use of defensive measures against cruise missiles, low-flying manned and unmanned aircraft, and moving surface vehicles such as boats, mobile missile launchers and tanks.

Threats can be detected from as far as 340 miles away.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2669839/Privacy-fears-mount-Pentagons-seeing-surveillance-blimps-ahead-operational-use-guard-against-cruise-missiles.html#ixzz35oPLF8oN
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Raz'r]

C'mon Tom.... they have to justify those shiny toys somehow.

I'm assuming they justify the spend by stating how armed the bad guys are.... Kinda a vicious spiral, doncha think?

Bad guys feel threatened, black market for weapons gets hotter. Local LEO sees the increase in arms, ups the ante, and round and round we go. Think the Bundy ranch debacle. 30 years ago there may have been protestors, but not heavily armed ones.

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

C'mon Tom.... they have to justify those shiny toys somehow.

I'm assuming they justify the spend by stating how armed the bad guys are.... Kinda a vicious spiral, doncha think?

Bad guys feel threatened, black market for weapons gets hotter. Local LEO sees the increase in arms, ups the ante, and round and round we go. Think the Bundy ranch debacle. 30 years ago there may have been protestors, but not heavily armed ones.

No disagreement, Flash - but, how do ya stop the spiral? It's not like the bad guys are willingly going to give up AK's and Tec9's for revolvers if the cops do.

 

[Raz'r]

I don't know that we can.

 

[mikewof]

C'mon Tom.... they have to justify those shiny toys somehow.

I'm assuming they justify the spend by stating how armed the bad guys are.... Kinda a vicious spiral, doncha think?

Bad guys feel threatened, black market for weapons gets hotter. Local LEO sees the increase in arms, ups the ante, and round and round we go. Think the Bundy ranch debacle. 30 years ago there may have been protestors, but not heavily armed ones.

No disagreement, Flash - but, how do ya stop the spiral? It's not like the bad guys are willingly going to give up AK's and Tec9's for revolvers if the cops do.

That's a big jump from the spiral. If cops want to carry the same legal weapons of civilians like assault rifles and semi auto handguns, then as civilian peace officers it certainly is their right to do so, as long as their employer is on board with that.
But that's not the same thing as civilian peace officers using surplus weapons of war that have questionable safety off of the battlefield and in an urban setting, and using military tactics in inapplicable situations.

 

[Regatta Dog]

C'mon Tom.... they have to justify those shiny toys somehow.

I'm assuming they justify the spend by stating how armed the bad guys are.... Kinda a vicious spiral, doncha think?

Bad guys feel threatened, black market for weapons gets hotter. Local LEO sees the increase in arms, ups the ante, and round and round we go. Think the Bundy ranch debacle. 30 years ago there may have been protestors, but not heavily armed ones.

No disagreement, Flash - but, how do ya stop the spiral? It's not like the bad guys are willingly going to give up AK's and Tec9's for revolvers if the cops do.

That's a big jump from the spiral. If cops want to carry the same legal weapons of civilians like assault rifles and semi auto handguns, then as civilian peace officers it certainly is their right to do so, as long as their employer is on board with that.
But that's not the same thing as civilian peace officers using surplus weapons of war that have questionable safety off of the battlefield and in an urban setting, and using military tactics in inapplicable situations.

Amen, Mike.

After 9/11 and the creation of DHS, the Fed dumped a lot of money and equipment into state and local LE agencies to combat terrorism. Now the Fed is giving away war surplus battlefield equipment to town, county and state LEA's. Not to combat terrorists, but because the hardware of war is there and the military doesn't need it anymore. Bad idea.

There was a thread here about the tactics used after the Bostom Marathon bombings. That was over the top, IMO, but SWAT teams are being used to serve a summons to appear in court these days.

A well armed citizenry is more important than ever right now.

I guess we can't have a clip with 11 rounds because 12 rounds might take out a humvee?

 

[Mark K]

http://www.gunnews.com/albuquerque-police-dept-kills-26-people-4-years/

Meanwhile, over in Alberquerque.....

I am so angry writing this that it is hard to know where to begin. So, lets start with the facts. The Albuquerque Police Department has killed 26 people since 2010 and wounded 40 more. To put this into perspective, this is twice the per capita rate as New York City and eight times the rate of Chicago. Walter White killed as many people as the Albuquerque police have! This news is disturbing and infuriating at the same time. The people in Albuquerque are not safe, but it isnt because of regular street thugsit is because of thugs with badges.The latest incident is a perfect example of exactly where the minds of law enforcement are in todays world. A homeless man, James Boyd, was illegally camping (misdemeanor) above the city of Albuquerque. He was approached by officers and told to leave. He was non-compliant and combative. He is also mentally ill, as is apparent when watching the videoed encounter. After hours of negotiating with him, he decided to comply and leave. Then police throw their favorite toy, a flash-bang at him, and release a police dog. He turns his back to police and is shot at that point in the back by the officer furthest away from him. As he lays the ground, he can be heard wheezing as he attempts to breath. The officers then shoot him twice with bean bags, and then release a police dog to bite his leg and then advance and handcuff him.Boyd died the next day in a local hospital. This isnt an outlier or a one-off. If it were, it would still be horrible. But, maybe we could give the officers a little room since the suspect did have two small camping knives. But this is a normal occurrence in this southwest town.With this many officer-involved shootings, surely, someone has been punished, right? Wrong. The city has paid more than $30 million is civil suit judgments. Do you want to guess how many officers have been tried and convicted of excessive force in this city? Exactly zero in the last 30 years. Zero, zilch, nada. Not even one.Kerry Brandenberg, the city attorney (EDIT: Kari Brandenberg is the district attorney, not the city attorney. I apologize for the error and confusion), has cleared every single officer involved in a shooting during her last 13 years in office. According to Brandenberg, when asked by CNN if the offending officers had been interviewed, I have to rely on police reports. We are not an investigative agency. What? If a city attorney is not an investigative agency, then what are they? They sure arent prosecuting criminals. I wonder if the city attorney also relies on statements of criminals to decide who to prosecute. I suppose evidence no longer matters.There is no doubt in my mind why citizens no longer trust law enforcement. Why should we? When an officer is killed, the entire community mourns and the officer is given honors and accolades. But, when a mentally ill man is gunned down, all we get is cover-up. I do not want to sound callous, but an officers life is no more valuable than that of the homeless man. Officers in Albuquerque have shown that they are not to be trusted and they are to be feared. There will come a day when citizens will start shooting back, but I imagine that Ms. Brandenberg will have no problem prosecuting those citizens.The stories of this department are enough to make anyone angry, except the city officials in Albuquerque. The feds are considering putting this department under federal oversight. Considering? What does it take to actually make it happen? How many citizens will these murderers kill before someone says enough?These officers who were involved in the murder of James Boyd need to be put in prison. Not suspended, not just fired, not reprimandedimprisoned. We live in sad times.

Share this:

No need. Looks like they have already spotted it...judging from some of the comments.

Brian says:

June 27, 2014 at 4:33 pm
First of all- thats about the most biased BS article I have read in a ling time. You start off with a rant about all these “killings” yet you pick one out and throw your view of it around to complete our own BS cop hating agenda. Im no saying they were all justified, as I have not seen them all. But I have watched and studied several of them. And they were justified shoots. As a matter of fact on several of them the officers are heard begging the suspect to put the weapon down! Now if your not biased against cops why not spend some time on putting the blame where it belongs? With the suspects who start the shit to begin with. I have noticed that is one of the big issues with today…no accountability with people anymore. Something goes wrong? Its not your fault. Its everyone else’s. I used to like getting these emails and reading these articles but now I’m done with them. You guys are just another cop hate baiting site and I will make sure that I let everyone see this. Thank you for showing your true colors.

Reply

 

[billy backstay]

C'mon Tom.... they have to justify those shiny toys somehow.

I'm assuming they justify the spend by stating how armed the bad guys are.... Kinda a vicious spiral, doncha think?

Bad guys feel threatened, black market for weapons gets hotter. Local LEO sees the increase in arms, ups the ante, and round and round we go. Think the Bundy ranch debacle. 30 years ago there may have been protestors, but not heavily armed ones.

No disagreement, Flash - but, how do ya stop the spiral? It's not like the bad guys are willingly going to give up AK's and Tec9's for revolvers if the cops do.

That's a big jump from the spiral. If cops want to carry the same legal weapons of civilians like assault rifles and semi auto handguns, then as civilian peace officers it certainly is their right to do so, as long as their employer is on board with that.
But that's not the same thing as civilian peace officers using surplus weapons of war that have questionable safety off of the battlefield and in an urban setting, and using military tactics in inapplicable situations.

Amen, Mike.

After 9/11 and the creation of DHS, the Fed dumped a lot of money and equipment into state and local LE agencies to combat terrorism. Now the Fed is giving away war surplus battlefield equipment to town, county and state LEA's. Not to combat terrorists, but because the hardware of war is there and the military doesn't need it anymore. Bad idea.

There was a thread here about the tactics used after the Bostom Marathon bombings. That was over the top, IMO, but SWAT teams are being used to serve a summons to appear in court these days.

A well armed citizenry is more important than ever right now.

I guess we can't have a clip with 11 rounds because 12 rounds might take out a humvee?

I don't know about that. Not gonna stand my ground when they come at me in full kevlar with full autos and large mags? Better to put your hands up and live to fight another day, I reckon.....

 

[Hard On The Wind]

Police Militarization in the US

The American Civil Liberties Union has released the results of its year-long study of police militarization. The study looked at 800 deployments of SWAT teams among 20 local, state and federal police agencies in 2011-2012. Among the notable findings:

• 62 percent of the SWAT raids surveyed were to conduct searches for drugs.
• Just under 80 percent were to serve a search warrant, meaning eight in 10 SWAT raids were not initiated to apprehend a school shooter, hostage taker, or escaped felon (the common justification for these tactics), but to investigate someone still only suspected of committing a crime.
• In fact, just 7 percent of SWAT raids were “for hostage, barricade, or active shooter scenarios.”
• In at least 36 percent of the SWAT raids studies, no contraband of any kind was found. The report notes that due to incomplete police reports on these raids this figure could be as high as 65 percent.
• SWAT tactics are disproportionately used on people of color.
• 65 percent of SWAT deployments resulted in some sort of forced entry into a private home, by way of a battering ram, boot, or some sort of explosive device. In over half those raids, the police failed to find any sort of weapon, the presence of which was cited as the reason for the violent tactics.
• Ironically (or perhaps not), searches to serve warrants on people suspected of drug crimes were more likely to result in forced entry than raids conducted for other purposes.
• Though often justified for rare incidents like school shootings or terrorist situations, the armored personnel vehicles police departments are getting from the Pentagon and through grants from the Department of Homeland Security are commonly used on drug raids.

As the bolded bits show, as if it needed showing again, no-knock SWAT raids are about preserving drug war evidence at the risk of human lives. They are not about preserving lives in the vast majority of cases.

The biggest erosion to personal liberty is due to increasing population density. The more person to person interactions there are every day the more police action is needed to sort out the flying fur.

 

[Mark K]

If only the latest crop of Pussmericans would understand that this country was a much better place, decades ago, when we had about two trillion less laws on the books. A time when people respected other people-----and didn't fuk with them, knowing what the consequences may be. Unfortunately, those days are long gone and these current generations of candy-asses have zero concept on personal responsibility. I think I wanns label them the Gen Blamers.....

I see what you are did there, and respect the thought. Shame all the Ted Nugent fan bois and such into attempting to attack police and thereby clean up the pro-gun gene pool. I would remind that they may not attack only police though. The primary reason our gun laws became so strict was the single incident of Bobby Seal organizing a gun-brandishing party in the state capital building in Sacramento.

 

[GRUMPY]

Mom of toddler severely burned by flash grenade during raid slams police Alecia Phonesavanh's 19-month-old son Bou Bou suffered serious injuries after a flash bang grenade landed in his crib during a botched drug raid. Now, she is speaking out against the trend of aggressive policing. 'It's time to remind the cops that they should be serving and protecting our neighborhoods, not waging war on the people in them,' she writes.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mom-toddler-burned-grenade-raid-slams-police-article-1.1847661

 

[Hard On The Wind]

If only the latest crop of Pussmericans would understand that this country was a much better place, decades ago, when we had about two trillion less laws on the books. A time when people respected other people-----and didn't fuk with them, knowing what the consequences may be. Unfortunately, those days are long gone and these current generations of candy-asses have zero concept on personal responsibility. I think I wanns label them the Gen Blamers.....

Decades ago when your nearest neighbor was 8 miles away it was easy to have a great deal of respect for them.

 

[mikewof]

It seems that lefties and righties are mostly in agreement in this thread.

And it will behoove the military to not allow their contractors to sell to civilian police departments, because when Americans realize how nightmarish these military weapons and tactics have been all along, they're not going to support these wars against faceless foreigners any longer.

One look at the baby in Grumpy's post shows why ... that's one American baby from one flash grenade attack gone awry. How many babies in places like Iraq and Afghanistan have suffered similarly or worse in the last decade?

Two photos above, two grieving family members, both over military tactics used by Americans. Heaven help our industrial military profits if too many people happen to see the similarities.

 

[Regatta Dog]

I'm assuming they justify the spend by stating how armed the bad guys are.... Kinda a vicious spiral, doncha think?

Bad guys feel threatened, black market for weapons gets hotter. Local LEO sees the increase in arms, ups the ante, and round and round we go. Think the Bundy ranch debacle. 30 years ago there may have been protestors, but not heavily armed ones.

No disagreement, Flash - but, how do ya stop the spiral? It's not like the bad guys are willingly going to give up AK's and Tec9's for revolvers if the cops do.

That's a big jump from the spiral. If cops want to carry the same legal weapons of civilians like assault rifles and semi auto handguns, then as civilian peace officers it certainly is their right to do so, as long as their employer is on board with that.
But that's not the same thing as civilian peace officers using surplus weapons of war that have questionable safety off of the battlefield and in an urban setting, and using military tactics in inapplicable situations.

Amen, Mike.

After 9/11 and the creation of DHS, the Fed dumped a lot of money and equipment into state and local LE agencies to combat terrorism. Now the Fed is giving away war surplus battlefield equipment to town, county and state LEA's. Not to combat terrorists, but because the hardware of war is there and the military doesn't need it anymore. Bad idea.

There was a thread here about the tactics used after the Bostom Marathon bombings. That was over the top, IMO, but SWAT teams are being used to serve a summons to appear in court these days.

A well armed citizenry is more important than ever right now.

I guess we can't have a clip with 11 rounds because 12 rounds might take out a humvee?

I don't know about that. Not gonna stand my ground when they come at me in full kevlar with full autos and large mags? Better to put your hands up and live to fight another day, I reckon.....

.... So said the Jews as they walked through the gates....