The Washington DC press are lazy whiners who must think they are at the center of the known universe and have special privileges. They have no "right" to know anything.
As for what is or is not covered, that is the essential characteristic of media bias. Much is never reported. One of my personal pet peeves: focus often goes to a single instance of a much wider problem thus exchanging tedium for intelligent information.
undercover detective was about to arrest him on suspicion of gambling on sports.
More to the point...what exactly was the crime here? So what if the guy was gambling on sports.
CapFree.... Was this story eventually published? Do you have a link to it?
CF.... Nevermind...I didn't see the hyperlink in the original post.
My understanding is that they used a SWAT team to serve a warrant to arrest an optometrist at his family home.
SWAT, fyi, stands for "Special Weapons and Tactics." Remind me please, why you need either special weapons, or special tactics, to serve a gambling warrant?
SWAT teams should not be used to serve warrants, where innocence is presumed - rather, they should be used only to diffuse hostile situations where there exists prima facie evidence of a crime, and/or an imminent threat. That's a special situation requiring special weapons and tactics. There is nothing special, or otherwise extraordinary about the "crime" of gambling that would warrant (hehehe no pun intended) the use of a SWAT team.
Just some testosterone-inflated, gentalia-challenged, chronically adolescent morons who get all jacked up about asserting their AUTHORITAHHH!!
I wonder... were these jackboots wearing Ninja costumes?
Well, the problem is --- I think that most people will agree - that these "tactical units" (many of which receive little formal training) have nothing but the best intentions - i.e, they are not the second-coming of Hitler's brownshirts.
Sure, some of the guys probably are the "I'm a bad mother-fucker, so I'm gonna get a rifle and join SWAT," but similarly, I bet many of them honestly believe they are doing the right thing - and honestly want to do the right thing.
But, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And no matter the intentions, make a stable situation inherently volatile by introducing grenades and automatic weapons is certainly a recipe for disaster. It's quite possible to draw comparisons to the misapplication of SWAT teams and the failed but infamous "Stanford Prison Experiment."
Sure, some of the guys probably are the "I'm a bad mother-fucker, so I'm gonna get a rifle and join SWAT," but similarly, I bet many of them honestly believe they are doing the right thing - and honestly want to do the right thing.
Do you personally know many law enforcement types?
I do. I would guess that for every 1 of the "sincere" type you'll find, there are 100 of "badass" types.
Every profession tends to attract certain personalities types. Law enforcement is no different.
I know many law enforcement types and although I agree with your assertion (that the profession attacts certain personality types) I believe your guesstimation is a gross exaggeration. Semantics aside, I think you'll find that even the bad mo-fo types ultimately want to do the right thing - the testosterone just clouds their judgement.
From my experience, most law enforcement types I know have a fetish about power. Sure, I'm sure that they want to do the right thing....(few would intentionally wake up and say, you know, I want to be a cop so can bully people)...but it takes a rather insecure person to get thier kicks from dominating others....which is what almost every law enforcement person I know has bragged about at one time or another.
I would suggest a larger sample.
The thing is that this is not an isolated occurence, it happens much more frequently than you would believe because the media seems to treat these things with kid gloves. Cops used to say that their job was so dangerous that they never knew if they would come home at night. Nowadays the cops kill so many innocent people that the public needs to be protected from THEM. They are so worried about their own safety that the public is endangered by them. Remember Columbine when 100 or so cops cowered outside for an hour until the shooting inside had long stopped instead of going inside and doing their jobs? That's the mindset behind these so called "SWAT" teams. Instead of protecting the public they are preoccupied with getting through the day without a scratch.
Look, I'm sure I read all the same libertarian blogs & news reels that you guys look at, I'm aware of the fact that this is not an isolated incident. But I also think that your refusal to see the world through anything-other-than-ideological-colored-glasses is clouding your thought. I do remember columbine, and any Law enforcement officer worth his salt will tell you that the breach was handled in an unimaginably inept manner. But you also have to consider that there were probable hundreds of hostages - going cowboy with guns blazing in through the back door is rarely the correct tactic, no matter what Steven Seagal and Rambo have taught us.
Yes police officers in many municipalities still have a very dangerous job - but police officers in the suburbs have a very cush job. Yes, police officers engage in inappropriate, unlawful behavior - as do accountants and longshoremen and die-makers.
But the fact of the matter is, and I will maintain it until you provide me evidence to the contrary, that events like that which befell Mr. Culosi are a rare exception in the world of law enforcement. A very rare exception. But in no way do I mean to cheapen, or lessen the tragedy, or to justify any wrongdoing on behalf of the officer(s). I certainly think that much greater care needs to be excercised, and that there exists a rising misuse of SWAT type police units - which only exacerbates the problems we've already outlined.
But classifying "all" or "the majority" of police officers as renegade testosterone-fueled civilian killers is an absolute untruth, you're deceiving yourself if you maintain otherwise.
Cops used to say that their job was so dangerous that they never knew if they would come home at night.
The funny thing is, if you find any concrete stats regard job safety, you'll find that being a cop isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs. It seems that lumberjacks hold the top title. Cops, the last I heard, were like the 30th most dangerous profession....
I would suggest a larger sample.
Agreed. But like I said, most...not all...in my personal, unscientifically justified experience, such is the case.
Doinkicarus check out this link. This is a link to drug war victims yet when you read the stories almost all these people were either innocent bystanders or the cops were at the wrong house. This is a small sample, check with Pete at drugwarrant or Radley at Theagitator for more.
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/
s...WarVictims.html
It's not that all or the majority of cops are testosterone fueled madmen. It's that they have no accountability at all. Cops are seldom if ever held accountable for their killings so they have no real reason not to use lethal force. A few months ago in Raleigh, NC a female cop was working security for a bar while off duty. She left her personal car unlocked with the keys in the ignition in front of the bar. While escorting some rowdy customers out the door she saw an unarmed homeless man driving off in her car so she shot and killed him. Now if you or I shot an unarmed person stealing a car out of our driveway and killed them what do you think would happen? I can can tell that we would be arrested and charged with murder. Yet this woman cop wasn't indicted by the grand jury because when the DA presented the case he said that her actions saved the life of an unnamed civilian. There was nothing about this in her original report or the investigating officer's report yet the DA magically came up with one and notice that this person was unnamed so that the person (if they exist) can't be questioned. The funny thing to me is that the man drove off after being shot and crashed the car down the street so how did her shooting him save anyone even if they did exist? In my mind she endangered the public by shooting this guy and him driving away. What if he had run over someone or crashed the car into someone else?
This is the kind of police work we deserve and are going to get until we insist on the cops being accountable for their actions.
Dave - I'm familiar with the list at salon, and I read Radley's blog daily. Your example involves an "off-duty" police officer, who by all appearances commit a crime in her individual capacity, and not as an agent of any law enforcement body. That the DA did not press charges is a problem in the courts and in the legal system.
You're on the right track though - that incentives do matter, and until there are significant disincentives for law enforcement to behave in this manner, it will continue to occur.
However, I stand by my assertion that despite the links at Agitator & Salon, the overwhelming majority of police-civilian interactions do not involve the loss of life, or anything that even approaches the use of deadly force. And I would assume that in an overwhelming majority if "deadly-force" applications, the officers are justified in the use thereof. The problem is then in the interpretation of the facts at hand - and how certain cases certainly slip through the proverbial cracks.
Before anyone jumps the gun and suggests I'm some sort of patsy for the Police - I'd suggest you refer to my previous writings, specifically about the Cory Maye case, here, here, and about capital punishment, here.
Also regarding your example: Discharging a weapon in a public street, towards a moving vehicle is a serious breach of the "force continuum." And I would reason that unless the danger to life was clear and imminent, no such use can be reasonably applied.
If the DA failed to recognize it, then it's time someone takes him/her to task for failing to uphold the responsibilities to the public.
Doinkicarus,
You are right of course that the majority of police-citizen interactions are relatively painless for both sides but the loss of life at the hands of the police are getting more frequent I think and are much more widespread than most would believe. I think it's a problem of attitude brought on by the ease with which they have found rights to be violated in the name of the drug war or DUI prevention. I also believe that if we don't start making a bigger issue of it and insist on accountability it will get worse.
If you haven't already guessed I don't trust cops period. I have yet to meet one that wouldn't lie to protect another cop. I've seen them do it in court so bad that other cops in the room would lower their eyes and try to pretend they didn't notice. I wasn't the defendant in those cases. I was a witness in at least one of those cases with direct knowledge of the facts and know that at least one cop lied and the other one swore to it. No matter how nice they seem if it comes down to you or another cop they are going to lie to protect the cop every time.
The really horrible part is I hate feeling that way. In my work I've met a lot of cops and even partied with some but I wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could throw them.
Doinkicarus: I just came across this at lewrockwell.com and thought you might find it interesting.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7...rig7/
ginn1.html
Rather than blame personalities, what about training? SWAT guys are, I assume, trained to behave as if they're surrounded by hostiles.
Anton. Yes. There is a trend lately to militarize the police--probably not a good thing overall. The police do, sometimes, have to duke it out with the bad guys (in which case SWAT teams are a good thing). But, for the large majority of their work they simply do not have to act like the military; and it is preferable for civil society that they do not.
On a related note...
Did anyone see that Don Knotts (aka. Barney Fife) died this week?
Hi,
Nice blog very informative. Hope you don't mind but i have bookmarked it.
Commenting by HaloScan
