Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 464 posts

Re: A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son

#91

Post by pachydermic »

fit2rule wrote: post #63
peterkelly wrote: post #20

I'm struggling to understand how any of the officers on the SWAT team - or, for that matter, those who formulated the policies to use tools like M-16s and flash grenades in drug raids - could possibly consider their actions to be less serious than someone taking or dealing in drugs.

Maybe there needs to be more publicity about drug gangs and the slaves created by the drug cartels. They exist, and they are heinous. But so too are these kinds of reactions from the police. Its really as if the public are caught in the middle of two horrific forces, being created on both ends of the playing field. The question is: who profits? The cold hard answer, which nobody wants to admit is this: the dealers of…

Police departments profit as well. They are able to confiscate all kinds of "evidence" like the car a dealer uses when they're selling drugs and then auction those items off. It's an extremely perverse incentive which must be eliminated.

More info: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21599349-america...

Well, here's the most relevant quote, anyways:

"""

Because of a legal quirk, SWAT raids can be profitable. Rules on civil asset-forfeiture allow the police to seize anything which they can plausibly claim was the proceeds of a crime. Crucially, the property-owner need not be convicted of that crime. If the police find drugs in his house, they can take his cash and possibly the house, too. He must sue to get them back.

Many police departments now depend on forfeiture for a fat chunk of their budgets. In 1986, its first year of operation, the federal Asset Forfeiture Fund held $93.7m. By 2012, that and the related Seized Asset Deposit Fund held nearly $6 billion.

Mr Balko contends that these forfeiture laws are “unfair on a very basic level”. They “disproportionately affect low-income people” and provide a perverse incentive for police to focus on drug-related crimes, which “come with a potential kickback to the police department”, rather than rape and murder investigations, which do not. They also provide an incentive to arrest suspected drug-dealers inside their houses, which can be seized, and to bust stash houses after most of their drugs have been sold, when police can seize the cash.

"""

Re: A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son

#92

Post by dllthomas »

CalRobert wrote: post #43

And yet if you suggest that police are anything less than complete heroes in every way your neighbors and relatives will shun you. Defending yourself against a corrupt, ignorant, and vindictive police force is one of the best uses I can think of for the second amendment.

"And yet if you suggest that police are anything less than complete heroes in every way your neighbors and relatives will shun you."

Not in my experience, but I have no trouble believing that has much to do with my social circles.

Re: A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son

#93

Post by hvs »

fit2rule wrote: post #63
peterkelly wrote: post #20

I'm struggling to understand how any of the officers on the SWAT team - or, for that matter, those who formulated the policies to use tools like M-16s and flash grenades in drug raids - could possibly consider their actions to be less serious than someone taking or dealing in drugs.

Maybe there needs to be more publicity about drug gangs and the slaves created by the drug cartels. They exist, and they are heinous. But so too are these kinds of reactions from the police. Its really as if the public are caught in the middle of two horrific forces, being created on both ends of the playing field. The question is: who profits? The cold hard answer, which nobody wants to admit is this: the dealers of…

And they only exist because the product they distribute has been made illegal.

Re: A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son

#94

Post by incision »

Sad that none of this surprises me anymore.

I gave up hope after the same local cops who have long been notorious for shooting everybody [1](2001) got off scot-free for contriving a raid of a local mayor, intimidating his mother in-law, shooting his dogs and unapologetically quipping about it [2](2008).

1: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/content/nation/investig...

"By any measure, Prince George's County police have shot and killed people at rates that exceed those of nearly any other large police force in the nation."

2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor'...

"The event gained national and international media attention. While the Calvos were cleared of wrongdoing, the police were accused by the Calvos and civil rights groups of lacking a proper search warrant, excessive force, and failure to conduct a proper background investigation of the home being raided. Despite the criticisms, no action has been taken against the officers or their respective police departments. In August 2010, Sheriff Jackson stated that "we'd do it again. Tonight."[1]"

Re: A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son

#95

Post by mattzito »

ser_ocelot wrote: post #30

If stories like this are new to anyone reading this, there is a great book worth checking out. "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces" by Radley Balko, ISBN-13: 9781610392112

I came here to post a link to that exact book - the one thing I will say is that the book is basically divided into two sections. The first section is a history of the militarization of US police that is fascinating, well-researched, and full of 50 years of context that I was totally unaware of. The book is worth reading for that alone.

The second section, really the last 1/3rd of the book, is a series of essays and articles, more op-ed than factual history. This is where Radley Balko's libertarian streak comes out full-bore, and it moves from semi-scholarly work to libertarian polemic. It's fine, of course, it's his book and he's entitled to write what he likes, but there's a lot of anti-government rhetoric and anti-social policy language in there that I found offputting.

In addition, throughout the book, the police are described in aggressive terms, they're always "threatening" or "menacing" or "assaulting" - while the people being arrested are "cowering", "hiding", "pleading".

It seems like it would be hard to know exactly in many cases what everyone was doing, and instead Balko is putting his emotional slant on what was happening. Then, in the second section of the book, he freely admits that he started tracking and writing about when dogs were killed during SWAT raids because it got a much more impassioned response from readers.

None of this removes the value of the book, which as I said was excellent. But I think I would have appreciated a little more nuance in some of the tone.

Re: A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son

#97

Post by silverbax88 »

frandroid wrote: post #76
peterkelly wrote: post #20

I'm struggling to understand how any of the officers on the SWAT team - or, for that matter, those who formulated the policies to use tools like M-16s and flash grenades in drug raids - could possibly consider their actions to be less serious than someone taking or dealing in drugs.

The drug war is a race war. It has little to do with drugs. They're not going after white coke/pot users/dealers very much, are they?

Race has nothing to do with it. Lots of meth labs getting busted in rural America are run by white dealers.

Re: A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son

#98

Post by whiddershins »

jcizzle wrote: post #90

1. This happened in rural Georgia, far away from Atlanta. 2. The suspect was later arrested for dealing meth. This isn't a little dime bag situation as the clearly biased writer would have you believe. 3. This isn't the suspect's first arrest, he was arrested before for distribution. Police found an AK-47 in his house. Here are things that could have been done to prevent this situation. 1. The homeowner could have no…

At minimum, you need citations for the claims, hence I downvoted you. As for the rest, I simply disagree.

Re: A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son

#99

Post by clarkmoody »

peterkelly wrote: post #20

I'm struggling to understand how any of the officers on the SWAT team - or, for that matter, those who formulated the policies to use tools like M-16s and flash grenades in drug raids - could possibly consider their actions to be less serious than someone taking or dealing in drugs.

I think the mentality among the police is "I'm going home tonight, no matter what."

Given the opportunity to wear body armor and carry a rifle when confronting a perceived threat, many will take it.

Re: A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son

#100

Post by peterkelly »

fit2rule wrote: post #63
peterkelly wrote: post #20

I'm struggling to understand how any of the officers on the SWAT team - or, for that matter, those who formulated the policies to use tools like M-16s and flash grenades in drug raids - could possibly consider their actions to be less serious than someone taking or dealing in drugs.

Maybe there needs to be more publicity about drug gangs and the slaves created by the drug cartels. They exist, and they are heinous. But so too are these kinds of reactions from the police. Its really as if the public are caught in the middle of two horrific forces, being created on both ends of the playing field. The question is: who profits? The cold hard answer, which nobody wants to admit is this: the dealers of…

> Maybe there needs to be more publicity about drug gangs and the slaves created by the drug cartels. They exist, and they are heinous.

This is really my main concern with the "war on drugs". Keeping the drug trade illegal doesn't get rid of it - rather, it just pushes it underground. The result is organised crime, violence, and so many other major problems.

Admittedly, I'm very far removed from the situation, but I find it difficult to imagine that there'd be so much of these problems if you could just walk into a store and buy your drug of choice in the same way that you buy cigarettes or alcohol. You don't see gangs and cartels forming from around the trade of household cleaning supplies or consumer electronics.

Post reply on HN