Jackson Free Press

The Cato Institute—made up of pesky libertarians who take on both "sides"—has released a report by Radley Bilko on the rise in popularity of paramilitary drug raises—and their dangers and abuses. Here's the executive summary:

Americans have long maintained that a man's home is his castle and that he has the right to defend it from unlawful intruders. Unfortunately, that right may be disappearing. Over the last 25 years, America has seen a disturbing militarization of its civilian law enforcement, along with a dramatic and unsettling rise in the use of paramilitary police units (most commonly called Special Weapons and Tactics, or SWAT) for routine police work. The most common use of SWAT teams today is to serve narcotics warrants, usually with forced, unannounced entry into the home.

These increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per year by one estimate, are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they're sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers. These raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors. The raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong residence. And they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects.

This paper presents a history and overview of the issue of paramilitary drug raids, provides an extensive catalogue of abuses and mistaken raids, and offers recommendations for reform.

Previous Comments

ID

88655

Comment

These increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per year by one estimate, are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers. This description exactly reminds me of that raid on those young people I went on with Melton and his two bodyguards when a neighbor said he bought pot from them. Also, when we were at UMC in our vests and all-black, the personnel there thought I was a swat team member. First time I've been mistaken for that. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-08T13:09:51-06:00

ID

88656

Comment

I saw the earlier article Bilko wrote on this topic, which I liked. The point that criminals also immitate police to gain quick entry was fascinating.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-08-08T13:36:08-06:00

ID

88657

Comment

It is fascinating—but, ultimately, not as important to a libertarian. The big problem here is the government abusing its authority to, supposedly fight crime, and the potential results.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-08T14:07:14-06:00

ID

88658

Comment

Problem is, the government did have the right until recently and even then there was no penalty attached to violating it.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-08-08T18:36:28-06:00

ID

88659

Comment

Iron, you've dozed off while sitting at the keyboard again. You just sort of mumbled something about "Dirty Harry" and left it at that. What was that again?

Author

Brian Johnson

Date

2006-08-08T22:01:39-06:00

ID

88660

Comment

It really makes you wonder about our claim to be a democracy and with a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Paramilitary Police Units are a joke and citizens are the butt of it. The frequency and severity of this wreckless behavior is escalating evidenced by the report released by the Cato Institute and other media.

Author

justjess

Date

2006-08-09T10:15:07-06:00

ID

88661

Comment

A defender of this trend (of which I'm not one) would cite the margin of potential firepower between private citizens and police forces. When the cartel scene got so large in Miami back in the 80's, police were regularly out gunned, finding themselves in situations where they were facing criminals with high powered automatic weapons while they were using service revolvers. I seem to recall reading that the (in)famous bank robbery out in California in the 90's, with the 2 guys in body armor and a large cache of automatic weapons was also a nation-wide "wake up call" to local law enforcement agencies across the nation that they were not prepared to face off with the firepower that a citizen could potentially throw at them. In that instance officers had to borrow weapons from a local gun store during the ensuing gun battle to be effective against the robbers' body armor. So as long as the public has access to the same weapons and body armor as the military does, and that doesn't seem to be going anywhere in the ole U-S of A, then I think you will find law enforcement agencies that will claim they must also embrace the same weapons, equipment and tactics, and must scare the hell out of whoever they are raiding because they themselves aren't sure what's behind that door. It could be anything from a kid in his pajamas to a well-armed criminal. So where's the middle ground is between protecting law enforcement and the citizenry at the same time?

Author

dvc

Date

2006-08-09T10:45:04-06:00

ID

88662

Comment

Dirty Harry? I didn't mumble that, I read the article. Such raids until recently were legal, and even now while the raid itself isn't legal, evidence gathered from it is. The Northridge shootout (which DVC refers to) is a famous example of how dedicated criminals can be very dangerous. There was also a famous shootout between the FBI and some bank robbers in Florida way back in the 80's which also highlighted how far behind Law Enforcement had fallen. Two agents died in that one. There was a case in Jackson where a raid had to be altered because the criminal had a Home Security Camera on his front door, which was monitored frequently. The tactic has evolved as a reaction to an action by criminals. Like DVC, I'm left wondering what's a good middle ground.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-08-09T11:28:06-06:00

ID

88663

Comment

I think the middle ground is long prison time in ugly places. Quick, swift enforcement for laws that already exist; death for those that deserve it. Make crime so unacceptale, that most people wouldn't dare do it. Make criminals actually fear punishment. Old people live in fear of them. What is wrong with this picture?

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-08-09T17:23:23-06:00

ID

88664

Comment

death for those that deserve it. Like Cedric Willis?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-09T17:32:18-06:00

ID

88665

Comment

Also, it is good to know that the worst criminals do not fear punishment. That's a sad truth that the lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key folks don't like to hear, but it's fact. And that means that ensuring that the fewest people possible become criminals in the first place is the way to make our society safer. Then you have fewer to send away for life, or to rehabilitate. (Notice I didn't say put to death, because I do not believe that civilized societies do that. Some day, the U.S. will become civilized—sooner rather than later, I believe.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-09T17:34:57-06:00

ID

88666

Comment

What happened to Cedric Willis was terrible. Those that were in charge of putting him away should be held accountable, I agree. But some of these people that are hard core criminals need harsh punishment. If we could deal with criminals as swiftly as they do their victims, the world would be a better place. It's just awful that these elderly people are being attacked. It's just not right.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-08-09T17:48:30-06:00

ID

88667

Comment

death for those that deserve it. Like Cedric Willis? No, Ladd. More like Lee Boyd Malvo and John Allen Muhammad.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-08-09T18:07:02-06:00

ID

88668

Comment

Exactly ejeff. I'm talking about predators like those two. Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, Tookie Williams, The BTK Killer, The Green River Killer, Carles Manson... People like this have no place in a "civilzed society".

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-08-09T18:56:00-06:00

ID

88669

Comment

"Also, it is good to know that the worst criminals do not fear punishment. That's a sad truth that the lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key folks don't like to hear, but it's fact. And that means that ensuring that the fewest people possible become criminals in the first place is the way to make our society safer. Then you have fewer to send away for life, or to rehabilitate. (Notice I didn't say put to death, because I do not believe that civilized societies do that. Some day, the U.S. will become civilized—sooner rather than later, I believe.) Posted by: ladd on Aug 09, 06 | 5:34 pm" I didn't see this post when I replied. If we don't strongly enforce the law, and crime get's bad, (real or precieved) then public opinion swings wildly towards someone who say's "It's over...Jackson's crime problem will end in 60 days". That worked out real well. They (the public) become so fed up with crime, that they take drastic measures. Then, we're stuck with a bad decision that last 4, possibly 8 years. I know; I was fooled. What happened in Jackson's last election is nothing new. In Criminal Justice 101, they teach "The Pendulum Effect" as relates to crime. I know you've heard of it Donna, but, for those that don't know about it, it goes something like this: If crime is down, and the public is not concerned with overagressive law enforcement and rights aren't being violated, it's ("the pendulum") is in the center. Sort of a happy medium, if you will. If crime goes up, the public throws a fit and want's something done because the pendulum swung too far off center... in Melton comes swooping in to save the day. So, our new "crime fighter" goes about cracking heads and such, violating people's rights. Soon, the public throws another fit wanting something done about that, because now the police are beating on doors with shotguns, have no warrants, pull people over for no reason, impose curfews and states of emergencies, ahem...tries to ban gunshows and so on... Now, the pendulum has gone all the way to the other side. And, whether we like it or not, the public will have the last say on this issue. What I'm getting at, is we don't want them throwing a fit either way. What we're talking about is prevention -vs- punishment. Like most things, if we don't have a balance between the two, we're doomed to fail---because the pendulum as relates to crime, will be off center. Yes, try and save them when they're young. But, once they're past a certain point, it's up to them.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-08-09T20:02:51-06:00