TheAgitator.com
Another Isolated Incident
Tuesday, October 21st, 2008Police storm the house of a a grandfather, who was watching his infant grandson at the time–complete with full SWAT attire, guns to the head, and “smoke bombs” (likely concussion grenades).
They were investigating the robbery of a cell phone store. The man’s 20-year-old grandson had apparently made a call from one of the phones.
Provided the police did the proper investigation beforehand to be sure they had the right guy and the right house, apprehending someone suspected of armed robbery would be a legitimate use of a SWAT team.
But since I’m writing about the story, you can guess what happened. They invaded first, and asked questions later. The grandson (a) hadn’t lived in the home for six years, and (b) apparently was guilty of little more than unknowingly purchasing a hot phone. He handed the phone over, and the cops left.
In the meantime, a man who did nothing wrong had his home ransacked, his privacy violated, and was generally terrorized. If he’d had a gun in his home for self-protection, he’d likely be dead.
It’s not that SWAT tactics are always wrong. It’s that they’re frighteningly too often the first resort with the police departments that have them.
“It’s not that SWAT tactics are always wrong.”
So when are they *right*?
But, for the officers, it’s soooooooo much Fuuuuuuuun.
OK, so how do we go about getting state laws changed so that they require that the affidavits for the dynamic entry warrants specifically detail why they cannot just arrest the suspect on the street?
Morally, SWAT tactics are always wrong.
Immorality reigns supreme in the United State.
Any situation that requires a full-scale military assault should have actual soldiers leading the way. However, practically speaking, the incidents that actually call for militarized tactics and armaments are so rare that most jurisdictions would never need anything beyond help from the National Guard.
Next on FOX: Good Hitting Police!
Followed at 9 by Little Hitler!
#2 Then we need to start making it not fun. Treating them like the Gestapo/SS/Army of Occupation they are, for example. 50% casualties, 25% fatalities on any SWAT team who pulls this crap will turn the tide right quick.
#3 Like that will do anything but add to the lies the cops already tell the judge.
Geez, the solution is simple.
If you don’t want a SWAT team destroying your home, don’t have grandchildren who purchase stolen goods.
To be on the safe side, you should also have sense enough not to live next door to someone whose grandson might one day purchase a stolen cell phone.
by the way, a question for Radley:
(I meant to ask this the other day in the open thread, but my internet connection was SNAFU)…
Radley,
Are you aware of any situations where local fire departments have busted down doors and hosed down the wrong house in one of those “isolated incidents” ?
It would be interesting to compare and contrast the reactions of a Fire Dep’t that committed such an error. Would a review board buy “Hey, just because we didn’t see any smoke or fire doesn’t mean that our firefighter’s safety wasn’t threatened. In these situations, it’s our policy to ensure that the potential for a fire is eliminated before investigating the scene for an actual fire.” as an excuse?
There are times when I almost wish a fire department would do this, so that it might illustrate how ridiculous these police raids are.
“#2 Then we need to start making it not fun. Treating them like the Gestapo/SS/Army of Occupation they are, for example. 50% casualties, 25% fatalities on any SWAT team who pulls this crap will turn the tide right quick.”
That’s an interesting idea, but are you willing to take 100% fatalities on your end in the bargain? That would be non-negotiable — see Waco.
Terry Gilliam saw this coming.
Did they at least remember to get a warrant? Love the use of the word “isolated” Yahoo or Google search “Tony Creed task force raid