TheAgitator.com
Disband the SWAT Team
Thursday, April 15th, 2010I have a piece in the Washington Times today urging smaller towns and cities to do just that.
35 Responses to “Disband the SWAT Team”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Good article, but Washington Times?
Good article, but Washington Times?
Meaning what? Other than the New York Slimes, I am blissfully ignorant as to the reputation of any mainstream media organ. Far as I’m concerned, they all suck statist cock.
Nice editorial. Of course as an Agitator and reason.com reader it doesn’t really tell me anything i haven’t heard from you before.
The comments unfortunately are the usual mixture of badge-licking and ignorant statism.
I didn’t realize having illegal drugs was a political crime. I figured it was a normal crime. Does this mean that you can’t have drugs if you’re a democrat?
well done! I like how polarized some of the comments are- this looks like it will be a hotly debated article.
my favorite quote in the comments: ‘This kind of whiney, anti police, Phil Donahue type approach is obsolete…’ I haven’t even HEARD Phil Donahue’s name in years! This guy has to be a serious, old-school law and order conservative…
Anyone remember the details of the sheriff that asked for volunteers for the SWAT team, then disqualified anyone that raised their hand? I think I read it here first.
Have any of the commenters called Balko a “liberal” in combination with “bedwetting” or “terrorist-hugging” yet?
Yeah, yeah. You whiny-ass pussies probably still believe in so-called due process, too. Wake up you pansies. There’s a new sheriff in town and his name is SWAT. If you break the law, you’re going down, baby. And maybe even if you don’t break the law. And don’t go getting all “innocent until proven guilty” on me. SWAT targets the worst of the worst exactly like they do at Guantanamo, but sometimes there’s a little collateral damage. No one’s perfect. Just remember the SWAT motto: “Kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out!”
One word!
Word.
Just the fact that you can get an article like that in a paper with such a conservative reputation is an accomplishment. A lot of their readers have probably never been exposed to anything like that. Good work!
Nice article Radley. Count me as one of your cheerleaders and keep it up.
Saint Zero:
Why is it a political crime? “Given that all parties who participate in a drug transaction do so voluntarily, the prohibition of drugs is at heart a political policy.”
So what is a normal crime? One that involves force or fraud against at least one non-consenting party.
Great article Radley… hopefully you open a few eyes. There’s gotta be some non-badge lickers among the Washington Times readership. Right?
You know, I was glancing at the local paper yesterday. The front page stories were two schools being forced to cut several million out of their budget, a local park asking for donations to stay open and… Three new cruisers for a local police department.
It dawned on me that I’ve never seen a police budget being cut.
FTFComments: “. . .NOT generally grounded in Constitutional Rights Granted by God.”
LOL WUT? Since when did the constitution come from god?
LOL WUT? Since when did the constitution GRANT our rights vice acknowledging them and forbidding the gov’t from infringing on them?
I’d say that consensual (between adults) crimes are more arbitrary than political, but I can see a reason you’d confuse the two.
Might be better to not refer to “absurdly small towns”, but rather the “absurdly large” SWATs in these reasonably small towns. I hear that people get defensive about this sort of thing.
Goober-
Consensual implies that it isn’t (or should not be) a crime. It is the political part that is important. The politicians make it a crime for “tough on crime” or “moral” political gain. In my eye, that’s why he use the terminology “political crime”. I don’t think he was confused… he was making a point.
Who the fuck is Phil Donahue?
#15 | Ben | April 15th, 2010 at 10:59 am
FTFComments: “. . .NOT generally grounded in Constitutional Rights Granted by God.”
LOL WUT? Since when did the constitution come from god?
I really don’t want to turn this into a religion vs. atheism debate, but many view natural rights such as those protected by the Constitution as being of a divine origin. That’s the basis behind the phrase from the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
While as an avid reader of your site, it was a bit Balko-lite version for me, however it was a perfect for the Washington times. Good work on getting the article printed and the additional exposure!
@#12 djm – great summation of highlighting why it is more of a political crime than a ‘normal’ crime.
@ Dave Krueger | April 15th, 2010 at 9:20 am
Agree completely. We need to provide our SWAT teams with cruise missiles so they don’t have to put themselves at risk to take out these drug lords.
In fact, we should give them nukes.
Thank you for the formulation of consensual/victimless crime as political crime. I don’t know if you are the first to put it that way, but that’s the first time it has sunk in with me, at any rate.
Put another way, there are crimes that involve harming other people, and then there are crimes that simply involve doing things they just don’t like. Designating the latter as “political” is perfectly apt.
And so was I. My point was that the politicians are solely being arbiters [over what we both believe should be legal activity], and that is the nature of politics. I see now that my attempt to be concise was at worst ambiguous and at best unclear. Perhaps I should stick with my long, thought-out analysis and leave brevity and poignance to the professionals.
Goober-
djm has us both beat. His was a very concise summation!
And I also see that my analysis lacks motive for the politicians, which I suppose is why Radley put it the way he did.
Dave Kreuger “Yeah, yeah. You whiny-ass pussies probably still believe in so-called due process, too. Wake up you pansies. There’s a new sheriff in town and his name is SWAT. If you break the law, you’re going down, baby. And maybe even if you don’t break the law. And don’t go getting all “innocent until proven guilty” on me. SWAT targets the worst of the worst exactly like they do at Guantanamo, but sometimes there’s a little collateral damage. No one’s perfect. Just remember the SWAT motto: “Kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out!”
lol, the really funny and pathetic thing is I know people who would agree wholeheartedly and never even notice the parody in that.
I’d say that consensual (between adults) crimes are more arbitrary than political, but I can see a reason you’d confuse the two.
When you look at how and why the drug laws were passed, and why Nixon in particular launched the phrase “war on drugs,” it becomes pretty clear that the drug laws we have today were put in place for political reasons.
My small town in Indiana only has 2 cops and 1 cruiser. I just don’t think that SWAT is much of a priority form them, lol.
Good article, as usual, Mr. Balko.
The comments are a bit disheartening but probably to be expected due to that paper’s readership. I think it gets back to one of the ironies of the so called modern right wing that has been pointed out many times on this blog. Mention government regulators stepping on people’s toes regarding economic freedoms and at least lip service is paid to the benefits of small government and market based policies. Give government regulators with a high school education a badge, a gun, and authority to shoot people and somehow that is courageous and honorable.
I want to become a confidential informant so I can start giving tips on “drug houses” that belong to the relatives of SWAT teams. Just imagine waking up at 3 AM to find Uncle Earl wearing a black ski mask and sticking an AR-15 in your face, screaming at you to “get down, get down” while you are already laying in bed. LMAO
Good article!!!!
Jim
A whole day has gone by and still only 6 comments n the Washington Times? Wow. Where in the paper did they bury that article? Or does the Times just have those 6 subscribers?
Nope.
All three subscribers posted twice.
SWAT teams should be part of the State Police, and any arrests they make handled by the state attorney general.
Losing any credit for the arrest or conviction on a case would be a disincentive to overuse of SWAT that is so common today.