I just finished reading Overkill, Radley Balko’s white paper from 2006 on the rise in SWAT-style policing. From the 1960s until now, paramilitary police units have gone from being rarely used specialty forces, only called when lives were in immediate danger, to being a routine way of serving drug warrants and a number of other situations with a non-violent offender. Balko has been studying this trend for years at the CATO Institute and is now a senior editor at Reason Magazine. I’ve been following his work for a long time, and I think he’s getting at the heart of a very problematic trend in this country, one that started with the drug war and is being continued with the war or terror. We’ve allowed greater militarization within our civil society because we’re at “war”.
Balko chronicles numerous instances of innocent people having their homes invaded and being physically harmed solely because police either got the address wrong or were lied to by an informant. The recent case of Kathryn Johnston in Atlanta, the innocent 88-year-old woman who was shot by invading police officers (one of whom was later charged with murder), was one of the first incidents to actually gather some widespread attention. Even while SWAT teams are glorified on TV, some high-level reflection on their use is starting to occur.
At the CATO Institute website, an interactive map is set up to review hundres of botched raids nationwide. Two from this area were particularly maddening:
In March 1992, police in Everett, Washington storm the home of Robin Pratt on a no-knock warrant. They are looking for her husband, who would later be released when the allegations in the warrant turned out to be false.
Though police had a key to the apartment, they instead choose to throw a 50-pound battering ram through the apartment’s sliding-glass door. Glass shards land inches away from the couple’s six-year-old daughter and five-year-old niece. One officer encounters Robin Pratt on the way to her bedroom. Hearing other SWAT team members yell “Get down!” Pratt falls to her knees. She then raises her head briefly to say, “Please don’t hurt my children.” At that point, Deputy Anthony Aston fires his weapon, putting a bullet in her neck, killing her.
Officers next entered the bedroom, where Dep. Aston then put the tip of his MP-5 assault submachine gun against Larry Pratt’s head. When Pratt asked if he could move, another officer said that if he did, he’d have his head blown off.
Though a subsequent investigation by a civilian inquest jury found the shooting “unjustified,” the officer who shot and killed Pratt was never charged.
And amazingly, one of them happened while they were filming an episode of Cops:
In May 1992, police in King County, Washington conduct a no-knock raid with cameras from the television show Cops in tow.
Police break open the door of the Glover family and their four children. They put a gun to Floyd Glover’s head and order him to the floor. Theresa Glover is handcuffed at gunpoint. Despite being half-dressed, and with the cameras still rolling, police at first refuse to let her cover up. Other officers then storm the children’s bedroom, screaming, “Everyone on the floor!”
Police had targeted the wrong home.
Cops would later decide not to air the raid. The same police department had conducted two other “wrong door” raids in the previous year.
I don’t know the full history of how SWAT teams have been used in the Seattle area (I moved here in 1997), but I do know that compared to the rest of the country, we’ve had way fewer incidences than other major cities since the early 90s. Someone will have to fill me in on whether there was ever a public debate over their use or whether police officials just realized their ineffectiveness and stopped the practice. (Or do they still continue to do them in some places with more oversight?)
This topic also leads to a related discussion that plays a role in paramilitary drug war policing – on confidential informants. When people talk about the Stop Snitching movement, they often confuse the real issue, even the clueless rappers who go on TV to defend it. In many cases like the one of Kathryn Johnston, the raid is predicated upon the word of a confidential informant, a person the police relies on to give them information on where drugs are being sold. In Johnston’s case in Atlanta, it was discovered that the police bypassed using an actual informant and then tried to get a former informant to lie for them to say they did. But in many cases, individuals will become confidential informants in order to make money or to take down a rival. They can very easily entrap others and send them to prison. In this context, the Stop Snitching movement isn’t the clear cut moral issue some believe it to be. But the distinction is often lost in the outrage when eyewitnesses to real crimes stay silent.
It’s not a surprise that much of this paramilitary policing goes on in poor, minority neighborhoods around the country. Some of it has been supported by those without racial animosity, but out of a belief that by attacking the drug trade in these communities we’d be helping them. As should be clear to anyone, knocking down people’s doors at 3AM doesn’t help anyone in any neighborhood. The list of tragedies chronicled by Balko in his white paper is terrifying. When you send police to serve basic drug warrants, especially at night, you invite violent confrontations rather than what the original intent of these team were, to diffuse them.
Well, as we all know, the Seattle police are pretty damn bad anyways. I don’t know whats wrong with the culture of police departments, but stories like this are interesting because they show how the patterns of dickheadery and disrespect for the people they’re supposed to be serving go far beyond the average beat cop who feels strong by hassling people.
The decision to use (or overuse) SWAT teams comes down from the top, just like the use of riot police (Still remember the WTO thing, what, 9 years later?) Its quicker and easier, and these people are guilty scum anyways, right?
While the civil lawsuit against the police officers and the city of Lynnwood couldn’t bring Robin Pratt back, her family did receive about $4 million in compensation (minus attorney fees). Which, of course, was paid by insurance companies. Aston was reassigned to a desk job; I don’t know what eventually happened to him, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he left police work and the area. There was a lot of media coverage and publicity at the time, in which his name was frequently mentioned, and it can’t be easy for a cop to live with shooting an innocent person. Very likely he’ll be tormented by it for the rest of his life. All this considered, the perpetrators of this screwup didn’t get off scot-free just because they weren’t prosecuted.
“Well, as we all know, the Seattle police are pretty damn bad anyways.”
Depends on what you compare them to. You don’t have to look any farther than Tacoma to find a far worse example of a police department.
Sending SWAT teams to arrest drug dealers seems like a natural response to the fact that drug dealers have armed themselves like military organizations.
@4
The problem with how these raids are carried out is that the assumption you make there is treated as fact rather than conjecture. Most of the people targeted by these raids are not well-armed high-level dealers, they’re just your run-of-the-mill pot smokers or small time dealers in bad neighborhoods. In the end, the raids are more likely to create violence rather than to prevent it.
Thanks for the background on the Pratt case. It sounds like we reacted in the proper way and recognized that police are accountable for their actions. Far too often in this country, that doesn’t happen.
There are no easy answers here, as Roger points out. There have been times in my life when seeing an officer arrive on the scene of a dispute is the most welcome sight in the world.
The fact that they are trained and prepared to use deadly force if necessary is what can make their presence a Godsend — in certain circumstances.
@6
Lucy,
Having police respond to a dispute is very far from what I’m talking about here. The cases that Balko describes are cases where there’s no dispute at all, but where police raid an unsuspecting home (often in the middle of the night) to serve a warrant. No one’s arguing that doing policework isn’t necessary, just that we shouldn’t be invading homes military-style unless a person’s life is in direct danger.
@4
the problem here is the fact that, like Lee says, these raids aren’t just being carried out against high powered, heavily armed dealers. Those kinds of situations are amongst the reasons SWAT teams exist. They don’t exist to go smalltime nonviolent criminals, or, for that matter, for use on private citizens being searched as a mistake.
Another problem that your post reflects is the urge of the general populace to want to say ‘they must be right, they’re the Police!’ (yes I know you’re not saying that yourself, but the tone is definitely there) In what appears to be inherent disdain for people they are tending more and more to go to these extreme measures as the first resort… And people largely let them get away with it.
PS: Sure the Tacoma police are worse… but that doesn’t mean a damn thing. This kind of problem is a feature of just about every large city police force. Its intellectually dishonest to try to justify bad behavior with fingerpointing.
You guys are starting to sound like Libertarians.
Cops are notorious for overkill. From emptying a 15 round magazine into someone for supposedly “reaching into their wasteband” to having 4 cop cars and a half dozen cops huddled around the scene of one of their buddies writing a speeding ticket, the police seem to overreact to practially everything.
Lee,
I have stood on standby for a number of Police SWAT drug warrants. The vast majority are for large Marijuana grow operations, Heroin sellers or Meth houses. I have never seen or heard of Police Swat going after the typical dime bag user. One suggestion, as to why these occur in poor neighborhoods that are predominantly minority, could be that in these neighborhoods, most people mind their own business. They are perfect places to set up major Drug operations, because you have little chance of someone talking to the homeowners association about that smell of cat urine coming from your house.
So my next question, aside from the obvious mistakes and the police entering a the wrong house, how many times are they entering a house where the occupants have been convicted of committing Violent acts? How many times are there large quantities of illegal guns found? As a comparrison, how many times are the “Surprised” (If you are running a drug operation out of your house, it shouldn’t be a surprise if the police come knocking) are first time offenders with no violent convictions in their history?
Secondly, have you ever been inside of a METH House and seen what type of damage that environment does to a toddler. I will venture a guess that you haven’t. It is wrong. It is terrible and a tragedy. The thought that individuals involved with the manufacture of illegal drugs are somehow nice people that are good parents and upstanding citizens is just wrong. Sure, I know there will always be exceptions, but those Prove the rule.
Windie,
I hope you never have to use the 911 system with your blanket statements like that. Maybe if you would actually climb out of your hole and do a ride along, your mind might be changed a little. Ever had a known HIV + criminal spit in your face? Even though the virus can’t be transferred through saliva, I guarantee you would have a much different outlook on what the Police deal with. Why don’t you come down from your high vantage point and get a little dirty. Why don’t you ride along in the Valley or CD and see how bad those cops actually are. Why don’t you go to Tacoma and see how bad those cops are or maybe how bad the criminals that they deal with are. Are there bad apples? You bet your ass there is. But your blanket statements are BS, and even you know that.
A teacher used the Robin Pratt story in one of my classes (I was in middle school at the time) as an example of why we should never get in to drugs. I remember that being one of the first moments of my life where I realized that the people who seemed to be in charge (the teacher) weren’t totally on the ball. There are a lot of important lessons to be learned from this tale, but “don’t do drugs” seemed then and now to be probably the shallowest.
Thanks for the follow up on this story Roger Rabbit. I never knew what happened to the officers and it makes me feel better knowing that there were some significant consequences.
Roger,
The husband had a Drug Warrant and there were kids in the home. What was the warrant for?
I have stood on standby for a number of Police SWAT drug warrants. The vast majority are for large Marijuana grow operations, Heroin sellers or Meth houses.
Exactly, and that’s what’s led to this problem. None of these situations were what SWAT teams were originally intended for. They were not meant for drug law enforcement. They were meant for hostage situations or other cases where a person’s life was in immediate danger. The fact that they’re now being used for drug law enforcement is why so many tragic situations have occurred.
I have never seen or heard of Police Swat going after the typical dime bag user.
Maybe not in this area, but in other parts of the country, it has happened (for example: police will find traces of marijuana in a trash can as a justification for a SWAT raid).
One suggestion, as to why these occur in poor neighborhoods that are predominantly minority, could be that in these neighborhoods, most people mind their own business. They are perfect places to set up major Drug operations, because you have little chance of someone talking to the homeowners association about that smell of cat urine coming from your house.
That’s not true at all, especially compared to wealthy suburbs. In fact, many large-scale grow homes today are set up in wealthy suburbs and go completely unnoticed.
So my next question, aside from the obvious mistakes and the police entering a the wrong house, how many times are they entering a house where the occupants have been convicted of committing Violent acts?
Much less than 100% of the time, and that’s a serious problem. You shouldn’t even be considering the use of a SWAT team unless you know that the targeted suspect is armed, dangerous, and could present a problem for a traditional warrant search.
How many times are there large quantities of illegal guns found?
Hardly ever. I could see if Balko has compiled actual statistics on this, but I’d estimate that less than 10% of SWAT raids result in the seizure of large numbers of firearms.
As a comparrison, how many times are the “Surprised” (If you are running a drug operation out of your house, it shouldn’t be a surprise if the police come knocking) are first time offenders with no violent convictions in their history?
Balko has also compiled the numerous times where SWAT teams were called against individuals with no criminal record. Many of the SWAT searches are used against locations, without a clear knowledge of who exactly is selling drugs. In addition, the idea that these people should just know that police are raiding ignores the fact that many of these are in high-crime areas, so the people whose homes are being invaded often believe that they’re being robbed and fire on the invaders, not realizing (or believing) that they’re police. As a result, many robbers now dress up as police and storm residences this way in order to rob people.
Secondly, have you ever been inside of a METH House and seen what type of damage that environment does to a toddler.
What does this have to do with anything? We’re talking about the method of serving warrants, not whether or not you can serve warrants. It’s a discussion about whether people should use paramilitary tactics, not about whether meth labs are good or bad. You’re missing the point here.
“What does this have to do with anything? We’re talking about the method of serving warrants, not whether or not you can serve warrants. It’s a discussion about whether people should use paramilitary tactics, not about whether meth labs are good or bad. You’re missing the point here.”
Because the idea that a regular beat cop has the training and knowledge needed to serve a METH lab warrant is preposterous. Using a team of organized individuals that have the appropriate training and are willing to go into an Explosive atmosphere (Please not I am referring to an actual explosion) IS a SWAT issue.
“None of these situations were what SWAT teams were originally intended for.”
That’s because when SWAT teams were originally formed, there wasn’t this type of violent criminals producing ILLEGAL drugs. Since then, Violence has become a mainstay in the Drug production culture. (The HELLS Angels are notorious drug producers. Are you trying to tell me that they aren’t violent at all?)
“That’s not true at all, especially compared to wealthy suburbs. In fact, many large-scale grow homes today are set up in wealthy suburbs and go completely unnoticed.”
Actually it’s completely true. Large Scale grow operations emit a rather pungent smell and typically draw a great deal of unwanted attention. In most upscale neighborhoods this type of attention would not be permitted. What is your source on this?
“Much less than 100% of the time, and that’s a serious problem. You shouldn’t even be considering the use of a SWAT team unless you know that the targeted suspect is armed, dangerous, and could present a problem for a traditional warrant search.”
And targeted suspect never have unknown accomplices that could be armed. Really, what world do you live in? Do a ride along. I think that even your eyes might become opened a little.
“Hardly ever. I could see if Balko has compiled actual statistics on this, but I’d estimate that less than 10% of SWAT raids result in the seizure of large numbers of firearms.”
Get ACTUAL numbers on this, because I think you are full of BS. I will admit I am wrong if you can get legitimate numbers to disprove this though. Not a study by a biased individual, get actual numbers.
“Balko has also compiled the numerous times where SWAT teams were called against individuals with no criminal record”
Compared to how many that are for people with Violent records. Play the odds. If the odds are that the majority of drug operations have weapons, then SWAT has to play the odds.
“In addition, the idea that these people should just know that police are raiding ignores the fact that many of these are in high-crime areas, so the people whose homes are being invaded often believe that they’re being robbed and fire on the invaders, not realizing (or believing) that they’re police.
I thought you said that these were occurring in upscale neighborhoods and that illegal guns weren’t found. Come on, you can’t have it both ways.
I heard an interview recently with the author of a recent book about the War On Drugs. One thing he pointed out was the unanticipated effect of the recent measures to limit access to cold remedies containing “something-or-other-ines”. These pills can indeed be used as raw materials to meth production, and were in fact widely used by small-time “cookers”.
The restriction of the domestic supply of such substances has led to the decline of “mom-and-pop” meth labs, so the market is now dominated by the Mexican Mafia. So now, an increasing amount of meth is being brought in from large-scale production operations south of the border, by folks with well-trained “soldiers” armed to the teeth. So now, instead of “Beavis and Butt-head” frantically flushing their stock down the toilet, police conducting a raid are more likely to face a group of really nasty guys with machine guns.
Because the idea that a regular beat cop has the training and knowledge needed to serve a METH lab warrant is preposterous. Using a team of organized individuals that have the appropriate training and are willing to go into an Explosive atmosphere (Please not I am referring to an actual explosion) IS a SWAT issue.
I disagree. There are many ways to serve warrants on homes that may have a meth lab other than performing a military invasion on the home. If a suspect decides to barricade the home, or keep children or others hostage, then you can use SWAT tactics. Otherwise, resorting to SWAT tactics before knowing more about the situation inside is more likely to create a dangerous situation than to prevent one.
That’s because when SWAT teams were originally formed, there wasn’t this type of violent criminals producing ILLEGAL drugs. Since then, Violence has become a mainstay in the Drug production culture. (The HELLS Angels are notorious drug producers. Are you trying to tell me that they aren’t violent at all?)
And the larger point here is that this is a result of their illegality. The reason that violence has become a mainstay in drug production is the same reason that it was true of alcohol production in the 1920s – because it’s illegal. But as I’ve already mentioned, numerous SWAT raids are conducted on just drug users (but I agree that that’s arguably not so prevalent in this part of the country).
Actually it’s completely true. Large Scale grow operations emit a rather pungent smell and typically draw a great deal of unwanted attention. In most upscale neighborhoods this type of attention would not be permitted. What is your source on this?
Here’s one about Sacramento:
http://www.npr.org/templates/s.....Id=6648912
The trend has also been happening here in Seattle and in Los Angeles as well. I’ve also seen stories about similar trends in Vancouver and Toronto suburbs. The Seattle Times actually wrote about it recently. Many suburban homes are being bought solely to function as grow homes.
And targeted suspect never have unknown accomplices that could be armed. Really, what world do you live in? Do a ride along. I think that even your eyes might become opened a little.
I live in a world where there have been hundreds of documented cases where a SWAT search became deadly when it didn’t have to. Why are there so many? Is it ok to kill innocent people in the drug war? How is it that you can accept that kind of collateral damage in a war against pills and plants? Are you nuts?
Get ACTUAL numbers on this, because I think you are full of BS. I will admit I am wrong if you can get legitimate numbers to disprove this though. Not a study by a biased individual, get actual numbers.
And you’re not a biased individual? Balko is a conservative libertarian and arguably the foremost expert on this topic. Here’s his testimony if front of Congress:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/121169.html
From that testimony:
800 times per week in this country, a SWAT team breaks open an American’s door, and invades his home. Few turn up any weapons at all, much less high-power weapons. Less than half end with felony charges for the suspects. And only a small percentage end up doing significant time in prison.
Back to your comment:
Compared to how many that are for people with Violent records. Play the odds. If the odds are that the majority of drug operations have weapons, then SWAT has to play the odds.
No, this is not how our civil society is supposed to work. This country was founded on the notion that there’s a significant danger to sacrificing liberty for security. You do not “play the odds” when you’re dealing with a potentially deadly situation.
I thought you said that these were occurring in upscale neighborhoods and that illegal guns weren’t found. Come on, you can’t have it both ways.
Wow, that’s a major stretch of everything I said. First, the grows are happening in upscale neighborhoods because those areas aren’t targeted and people feel it’s easier to get away with it. Also, those homes are often unoccupied. Second, marijuana grow-homes are only a small portion of how SWAT teams are used. When law enforcement targets harder drugs, they will tend to be in high-crime poorer neighborhoods, since the presence of these black markets is what makes these areas high-crime areas. I hope that at some level, you understand the parallels between alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and what we see with the current drug prohibition today.
The fact of the matter is that anything can be justified by the “War on Drugs”. Our local cop up there spewing off is an example. Everybody is the enemy to such cops. Everybody is a criminal. It’s every cop for himself, and killing innocent civilians becomes part of the job because the #1 goal is force protection, not policing. Congratulations, we have turned our cops into the U.S. Army in Iraq. Boy, look how well that clusterfuck is working out….
Somebody tell me that our cities are safer today than they were 40 years ago before the “War on Drugs” was declared and paramilitary policing of heavily armed soldiers with police uniforms became the norm. C’mon, anybody have any statistics — ANY statistics — telling me that cities today are safer than they were 40 years ago? Can anybody give me any statistic — any statistic — showing that drug use is lower today than it was 40 years ago before the “War on Drugs” was declared and paramilitary policing became the norm? If you do, I’ll agree that paramilitary policing is working. But from my perspective, all it’s working at doing is racking up body counts and disenfranchising minority populations. Seems to me that the whole point of the “war on drugs” nowdays, given that those disproportionately arrested for it are minorities while studies show that drug users and dealers are fairly well represented across all ethnicities, is to disenfranchise minorities as “felons” now that it’s illegal to disenfranchise them using “literacy tests” or “poll taxes”. Or are you saying that the studies regarding drug use are wrong? What scientific credentials do you have for making such a statement, if you are going to make such a statement? Hmm…
In 2002 my apartment was raided by the Seattle Police SWAT team. My roommates and I were gone on Spring Break, thankfully, so the first we learned of the devastation was when we came back to find out door padlocked and a business card on it from the SPD telling us to contact the North Precinct.
What happened was this: Over in Wedgwood someone robbed the US Bank on 35th Ave NE. The teller slipped a radio transmitter into the money bag and the cops tracked it to the vicinity of our apartment building, near NE 95th and Lake City Way. The robber threw the money bag out of his car and it landed in the bushes next to our floor. The signal from the transmitter bounced off of the wall of our unit and then went out into the world, leading the cops to believe the robber was in our apartment.
They called our phone and left over 20 messages on the machine (“this is the Seattle Police, we have you surrounded, pick up the phone, we want to talk to you”). They evacuated our building and the one next to it. They showed pictures of the robber – a fat, balding, middle aged man – to our neighbors and our landlord, who shook their heads and said “that person doesn’t live there – they’re just young students. Are you sure you have the right apartment?”
After a few hours of the standoff they went into the one below ours and drilled a hole through the ceiling, to slide a small camera up into the area where they thought the suspect was hiding. They saw nothing. More hours passed. Finally, around 11 pm (the standoff with an empty apartment began around 3), the SWAT team began planning to storm the place. The FBI agent on the scene suggested this was unnecessary and expressed skepticism that anyone was inside (or so this agent claimed when he talked to us a few days later).
But the SWAT team stormed the place anyway. First they fired a volley of pepper spray grenades through every window, shot with such force that they tore holes in the drywall and closet doors. Then they smashed the front door in, and with guns drawn, searched the entire apartment, overturning all the furniture (ensuring now that everything was covered in pepper spray). They found nothing. As the team exited the apartment someone said “hey, what’s that in the bushes?” The money bag was found, but the robber had long since gotten away.
When we finally got to the North Precinct, the sergeant on duty said he was there that night and felt bad for us, said he couldn’t sleep that night knowing they’d destroyed our place. The apartment was uninhabitable – even with all the windows open and fans at full blast, we couldn’t spend more than 30 seconds in there before we were overcome with nausea from the pepper spray. We all had to find temporary lodging, and ultimately, a new home – the landlord had to gut the entire unit, a 4-month process, to make it suitable for new renters.
In the weeks afterward, in telling my story to other folks at bars and on buses, I heard countless other tales of similar mistaken raids. Luckily none of these people had been killed or seriously hurt by the police, but all felt it was a gross invasion of their basic rights and freedoms.
We filed a claim against the city of Seattle for their actions, so that we could recoup the costs of having to replace all our furniture, most of our clothes, and relocation costs. Nine months later the city informed us they had denied our claim, daring us to sue them. By this time my roommates had scattered to the winds, and we could not come together to plan a suit. Seattle got away with it.
This problem is a major one in Seattle. As seen with the current OPA scandal, the SPD does not have any oversight or accountability, and nobody in city hall seems interested in providing it. The SPD has a VERY long history of corruption and abuse of power, and while they’ve been much less corrupt over the last 30 years, that may merely be because they’ve gained a significant amount of power in that time, power that is unchecked and unlimited. The SPD is a blot on the city, and in need of major reforms.
And yet, despite all that, they’re still MUCH more preferable than the odious King County Sheriff’s Department…
I may be prejudiced because of generations of family members who have been involved in law enforcement, but the fireman has a clearer view of the situation than you may want to admit.
He prafaced his opinion by stating that there is NO excuse for sloppy police work. Having said that, on an arrest such as a drug warrent, you have to be prepared for anything.
@5 “It sounds like we reacted in the proper way and recognized that police are accountable for their actions.”
Not really. The city fought the lawsuit, the insurers lowballed, and it took a jury verdict to get them to pay anything. And, as far as I know, the officers were never disciplined.
Which brings up a point. Republicans want to take away your right to sue. They want to leave you without recourse or compensation if something like this happens to your family. They call it “tort reform.” I call it coddling wrongdoers and sucking up to greedy insurance companies. BTW, guess who bankrolls “tort reform” campaigns?
G R E E D Y I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N I E S
@7 Obviously there should be policies, guidelines, and restraints on the use of SWAT teams. And perhaps the courts have given police too much leeway to use no-knock break-and-enter tactics to serve warrants or pursue suspects, due to not giving enough consideration to the risk to innocents.
@8 “PS: Sure the Tacoma police are worse… but that doesn’t mean a damn thing. This kind of problem is a feature of just about every large city police force. Its intellectually dishonest to try to justify bad behavior with fingerpointing.”
My comment about the Tacoma P.D. was a direct response to your attempt to portray the Seattle P.D. as an exceptionally bad police department. I don’t think they’re a bad department compared to the average big-city department, and I used a specific example to illustrate the point … what’s “intellectually dishonest” about that?
@10 “to having 4 cop cars and a half dozen cops huddled around the scene of one of their buddies writing a speeding ticket”
I used to feel that way, too, before traffic cops started getting shot right and left. Let’s face it, our society has gone downhill, and revamping police procedures to provide greater safety to cops is just a natural response to the insane violence in our society.
“I used to feel that way, too, before traffic cops started getting shot right and left. Let’s face it, our society has gone downhill, and revamping police procedures to provide greater safety to cops is just a natural response to the insane violence in our society.”
Hence the use of SWAT to execute warrants.
@13 Are you talking about the Pratt case? That wasn’t a drug warrant. The police received a tip that Larry Pratt was involved in an armored car heist that, as I recall, resulted in a parking lot shootout that killed one of the armored car guards. The informant who gave Pratt’s name to the police was either a liar or misinformed; a subsequent investigation cleared Pratt. Aston equivocated about why he shot Mrs. Pratt; he claimed he didn’t recall pulling the trigger. She was handcuffed and shoved face-down on the floor as she lay dying of a bullet wound to the back of her neck. The inquest jury was split; several jurors thought the police had behaved criminally. Republican attorney general Ken Eikenberry decided not to prosecute the cops.
To the best of my knowledge, the perpetrators of the armored car robbery were never caught.
“An armed society is a polite society.” Ted Nugent
“An armed society is the same as an unarmed society, except in an armed society, the criminals and idiots have guns.” headless lucy
@20
He prafaced his opinion by stating that there is NO excuse for sloppy police work. Having said that, on an arrest such as a drug warrent, you have to be prepared for anything.
That’s true for traffic stops too. Should police officers be able to smash your back windshield and toss a smoke grenade into your car after you get pulled over to make sure nothing bad happens?
No one is saying that SWAT teams should never be used, what’s being said is that they are being overused, especially to serve drug warrants and other non-violent offenses. The evidence has clearly shown that using a SWAT team is more likely to create a violent or deadly situation than to prevent one.
@19
Eugene,
Thanks for the comment. I’m all too familiar with cases like yours. I wasn’t sure how frequently they occur here, but I’m not surprised to hear that it’s more than you hear about in the papers.
@17 “I disagree. There are many ways to serve warrants on homes that may have a meth lab other than performing a military invasion on the home. If a suspect decides to barricade the home, or keep children or others hostage, then you can use SWAT tactics. Otherwise, resorting to SWAT tactics before knowing more about the situation inside is more likely to create a dangerous situation than to prevent one.”
I’m having a tough time agreeing with you on this one, Lee. Police departments across the nation have paid a steep price in blood to learn drug raids can be dangerous, and their tactics are a predictable reaction to the rash of cop killings in recent years. I’m not saying it’s a good thing.
It certainly isn’t an easy thing. You need the right people on a SWAT team, who have to be highly trained, and the commanders responsible for making deployment decisions must exercise good judgment. There’s an awful lot of room for human error in these operations, and the consequences of error are awful, as the Pratt case demonstrates.
I know a former SWAT commander. This doesn’t make me more sympathetic to police who screw up, or less supportive of citizen oversight and accountability, but his stories give me insights about what that job is like. Early in his career, his team deployed maybe once a month; at the end, they averaged half a dozen operations per week. He got to thinking about the odds, and quit police work. He wanted to see his kids grow up. I don’t blame him, or any other cop, for that.
The police raid on the Pratt home because of a bad tip is somewhat understandable, although the cops’ reliance on an informant who proved unreliable is debatable (and was hotly debated at the time); but in any case, what happened in the home was inexcusable. How can a woman on her knees, with hands on her head and back to the cop, get shot in the back of her neck at point-blank range for saying to the cop, “Please don’t hurt my kids”? It was impossible for Aston to interpret anything she did or said as threatening. The only conceivable explanation for this tragedy is a jumpy cop with an itchy trigger finger who never should have been allowed to serve on a SWAT team, and probably shouldn’t have been a cop. Somewhere in there is a major management failure; inadequate screening of candidates, inadequate training of officers, bad decision-making by commanders, and poor judgment all around … probably all these things were factors in the incident that will forever blacken the Lynnwood P.D.’s reputation.
@31
I agree with a lot of that. You certainly need to have the right people on a SWAT team. Having people with a cowboy mentality on a SWAT team is a recipe for disaster.
A drug raid can certainly be dangerous. But as I pointed out, so could a traffic stop. Yet we don’t allow for police officers to take a military style approach to a pulled over motorist, just as we shouldn’t take a military style approach to serve most drug warrants.
I think your friend made a very smart decision to give up police work when his SWAT unit started being used more and more frequently. The odds of being shot in a drug raid most certainly go up if the suspect is convinced that his home is being invaded. The idea that you’ll be more likely to be shot through normal means doesn’t really make sense. Most people who are guilty of a drug crime don’t want to be guilty of shooting at a police officer. In addition, the rationale for using no-knock raids in these situations wasn’t so much for the sake of officer safety as it was for preventing the suspect from destroying evidence.
@19 Refusing to pay your claim was simply bad faith. Unfortunately, bad faith has become the norm. The private insurance industry model is a bad one to follow.
RR,
I agree with you, about the unnecessary shooting of Mrs. Pratt. When I search for her name though, I find that there are a number of references about this incident which describe an arrest warrant. My questions, before I condemn the Police would be
1. What was the arrest warrant for?
2. Did the husband (Whom by all accounts the warrant was for) have a history of violence?
Anytime that an innocent life is taken is a tragedy. I would condemn any action that could result in this. I still believe that SWAT is an effective and necessary tool to be used in Drug Raids. Again, by simply playing the odds.
@20 “there is NO excuse for sloppy police work”
This is the key to everything. Hiring the right people; training them properly; supervising them adequately; and exercising sound and cautious judgment all around. And accountability and accepting responsibility when things go wrong.
@36
I think that this is probably the main reason why incidents like this are less common in Washington State than in other parts of the country. Many of the tragic cases documented in Overkill would have been prevented had officers not been sloppy (or dishonest or corrupt).
19 Eugene, you could have been far worse off. A few years earlier than your experience, the SPD smashed in the door of an apartment in the Central District. The old man in the living room spun around in his swivel rocker and the TV remote in his hand was mistaken for a weapon by the officer who shot him dead. As it turned out, the police had gone to the wrong address.
About 20 years ago, William F. Buckley wrote an article in the National Review surmising that the rising popularity of SWAT units might have had something to do with the end of our involvement in Vietnam. A goodly number of combat veterans found jobs in police work, and at the same time the weapons manufacturers were looking for new markets for their wares. Simultaneously (but perhaps not coincidentally) several movies and TV programs were presenting the SWAT concept as A Good Thing. Before long, just every city larger than Gorst had a “kinky-weapons” unit. And well…when the tool you’re holding is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
Buckley further speculated that this created something of an atmosphere that quickly rubbed off on the general public. As a result (and I’m paraphrasing from memory here) some guy who had some harsh words with his wife, who might otherwise smash a dinner plate against the wall and go to the local pub to calm down, now ends up going completely berserk, taking the family hostage and staging a stand-off with the gendarmes. The reactions of real criminals became even worse.
20 Norm Stamper wrote a rather impressive book, saying exactly that–and pointing out that it’s all too common anyway.
@roger:
I say “Seattle police are bad”. You say “Well tacoma is worse”, as if that denies in any way that seattle police are bad. That was the problem.
@IAFF guy:
I’ve had enough cases of being jerked around by badge-happy police officers (and I’m about as law-abiding a person as you can possibly get) that I don’t need a ‘ride-around’. You spend many hours in the back of a cop car because they think its easier than finding the real suspect, and you get a little suspicious
~~~
That being said, I’d bet that this disagreement is largely split along age lines. Nobody I know my age or younger thinks anything good about the cops. Maybe its because of when we saw the WTO incidents, or because most of us have had bad experiences for no reason, or just that we don’t have that enculturated respect that older people do.
Anyways, Lee is making my argument far better than I do, and you folks really haven’t been able to address the main points.
also, @34 & 35, thats exactly my point.
The culture is the problem… and it goes all the way to the top. Misapplies warrents, misuse of paramilitary-style forces. It may be the guy on the SWAT team that trashes the apartment or shoots some lady, but he’s not that much more at fault than the officer who sent him in.
You know folks if we didn’t outlaw drugs criminals wouldn’t be in charge of their distribution. Make’em all legal and treat addiction like the disease that it is. Isn’t it funny that in almost every facet of federal law drug addiction is treated as a medical problem except criminal law. Wonder why that is? Anyone think money may have something to do with it?
For all of you that are going to reply about how awful that would be let me say this: I am not my brothers keeper. It is not my business (nor yours) what adults put into their bodies. Are some of these people going to OD and kill themselves? Sure they are but it’s OK, our present policy only slows down natural selection a little anyway.
@42
Let’s not forget that over 70-percent of King County’s general fund goes to the criminal justice system (as Goldy say’s in the next post). Add in Seattle, the state, and Feds, and just how much does this Drug War cost us? After 30 years, have we won yet?
I oppose the War on Drugs, but as long as we have the welfare state, we’ll have the WOD. If I am charged with diaper-duty, I WILL have a say in selection of diapers. My top priority: make it strong. The welfare state and nanny state go hand in hand.
@44
If that’s true, then how come alcohol prohibition was ended at the same time the New Deal was being launched?
Prohbition ended shortly after FDR took office, well before implementation of the New Deal, and long before the effects of the New Deal were fully felt.
You still have no point. The point is that the people who built the modern welfare state also ended alcohol prohibition. The fact that they didn’t do them exactly at the same time doesn’t really mean much.
If the issue is whether the welfare state necessitates the nanny state then the timing is relevant. The nanny state is an unintended consequence of the welfare sate, even though welfare advocates might not want to restrict liberty. By the way, I have to note that there was support from progressives for prohibition. There were the health advocates (in the same vein as today’s anti-tobacco people) and the suffragists, who saw women as innocent victims of alcohol (domestic violence, etc). Anyway, I’m getting a little digressive, and I thank you for you review of ‘Overkill’ (which I read a few months ago). No one seems to care much about it. When the Iraq war ends (if ever) I’m afraid there will be huge pressure to expand SWAT policing, as many of those highly trained returning soldiers will not want to become accountants, and will need an outlet for their skills. When I was a boy there was no such thing as cops in military garb. I recall reading once about a famous FBI agent named ‘Jelly’ Bryce, whose job was to apprehend the baddest of the bad, and he did it all in a suit and tie.
If you ever get time, I suggest looking into the matter of ‘sting’ operations, which have become a much more common police tactic since the drug war, which of course relies on stings. The problem is that the whole concept comes from the world of con-artistry, and there is huge scope for abuse. A few years back I read that NYPD was conducting stings on cops themselves. Needless to say, the cops howled like stuck pigs over this policy(pun intended). See “New York Police Sting Tries to Weed Out Brutal Officers,” NYT, Sept. 24 ’99, p A23)
If the issue is whether the welfare state necessitates the nanny state then the timing is relevant. The nanny state is an unintended consequence of the welfare sate, even though welfare advocates might not want to restrict liberty.
But a nanny state can exist without a welfare state as well. In fact, many Muslim countries are like that. They have significant nanny states based upon religion without much in the way of welfare. I don’t believe that building a welfare state makes us any more or less prone to nanny statism.
By the way, I have to note that there was support from progressives for prohibition.
Absolutely. Progressives at the time were hugely responsible for prohibition. But the progressives of that time were also much more motivated by faith than progressives of today.
There were the health advocates (in the same vein as today’s anti-tobacco people) and the suffragists, who saw women as innocent victims of alcohol (domestic violence, etc). Anyway, I’m getting a little digressive, and I thank you for you review of ‘Overkill’ (which I read a few months ago). No one seems to care much about it.
You’re welcome, and I appreciate the reply. There’s a lot to be concerned with, and I certainly share your worries over the fallout from however the Iraq War concludes. I think a lot of Democrats understand these issues, but are so damn skittish over looking soft on crime that I’ll be disappointed with what they’ll do when they take over in 2009.
Thanks again, Lee, and keep blogging away