A Dangerous Game of Dress-Up

Status
Not open for further replies.

xd9fan

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
1,858
Location
Under tyranny in Midwest
by Rob Blackstock


This past weekend found me in Natchitoches, Louisiana, the oldest permanent settlement in the Louisiana Purchase and the home of Lasyone’s, the restaurant which makes the world’s greatest meat pies. The residents of Natchitoches were having yet another music festival (there are more festivals than work days in Natchitoches) and revelers had arrived from all over.

Lined up along one side of the ancient, brick street was an immense gathering of motorcycles and their owners. Nearer to Cane River Lake were several horses accompanied by riders. Looking from the motorcyclists covered in leather, fringe, appropriately logo-ed tee shirts and bandanas, to the horsemen wearing hats, boots, buckles and spurs, it suddenly dawned on me why both motorcycling and horseback riding are so popular: both activities allow grown men to play dress-up.

When I was young, Harley riders were a hard lot. Tattooed, dirty, often possessing a criminal record a mile long, they were people to be avoided at all costs. Today, most Harley riders you see are professionals with a career, a mortgage and 2.6 kids. Riding a Harley and wearing the officially licensed merchandise allows them to pretend to be something they are not; a gang member, feared by decent folk. A desperado of the open road; an easy rider.

Weekend cowboys are no different. If a person honestly loved to be on the back of a horse and that was all there was to it, there would be no reason to spend $100 on a Stetson and a giant belt buckle. Those accoutrements allow the rider to escape reality and assume a new identity; a lone cowboy riding the trail, looking for doggies lost from the herd. Weathered, grizzled. A dangerous hombre.

See? Playing dress-up.

I imagine that many a modern day Heck’s Angel would throw his palm pilot down in complete disgust were he to hear me say such a thing. "Just wait until I finish the Davidson account," he would roar, "and then we’ll see who’s playing dress-up!" Vroom! Vroom!

There is nothing wrong with playing dress-up. If you want to dress like a Confederate soldier and march around a field all weekend, go ahead. There is absolutely no harm in doing so.

My great fear is that there is another group playing dress-up today, and their actions do cause harm.


Source of picture: St. Petersburg Times.

The militarization of the police

How many of you remember the TV show SWAT from the mid 70’s? Robert Urich and his team would roll into a dangerous situation in their big, blue van with the best theme music this side of Peter Gunn blaring in the background. As a child, I loved it. It appears that many other people my age also loved it. Since the early 80’s, the number of SWAT team deployments have increased from approximately 3,000 per year to more than 40,000 every year.

40,000. Really. A 13-fold increase in 25 years. Why?

SWAT teams are now used by police departments to perform jobs that normal, uniformed officers once handled.

Illegal gambling? People voluntarily coming together and playing Texas Hold-em? Send in SWAT! (see the video here)

Suspect that a high school student might have marijuana in his locker? Send in SWAT and terrorize all of the students! [The school’s] surveillance cameras and a police camera… show students as young as 14 forced to the ground in handcuffs as officers in SWAT team uniforms and bulletproof vests aim guns at their heads and lead a drug dog to tear through their book bags… No drugs or weapons were found during the raid and no charges were filed. (Source: ACLU)

Elderly women in their homes minding their own business? Send in SWAT!
Ms. [Kathryn] Johnston, who was at least 88 years old, was killed in a barrage of gunfire after narcotics officers burst through the front door of her home without warning last Nov. 21. Apparently fearing for her life, Ms. Johnston, who lived in a high-crime neighborhood, met the officers with a gun. (Source: NYT)

Heck, let’s just send in SWAT now and ask questions later! The CATO Institute maintains an interactive map tracking and documenting dozens of botched paramilitary raids throughout the U.S.
But it doesn’t stop there. Once a police department forms a SWAT team, the military attitude is adopted by the other members of the force. Today, we see not just SWAT members, but patrolmen moving about our towns wearing jump boots and flak jackets… just like the military. Unfortunately, once a person adopts the military mindset, the focus is no longer to assist, to help and to be the peacemaker, but rather to intimidate, to force and to destroy.

Look at what happened in MacArthur Park this past Monday. Police in riot gear (read: military garb) decided to disperse an overwhelmingly peaceful demonstration and assaulted with batons and rubber bullets everyone who did not cower and flee at their coming, including the female reporters attempting to film the despicable scene. Watch this video until the end and you will be reminded of China’s Tiananmen Square as paramilitary-police batter a man attempting to support an American flag while another policeman uses his baton on a woman splayed in the dirt.

I fear things will become even worse in the future. The paramilitary-police are now being glamorized on TV once again. But this time the shows are not fiction as they were in the 70’s but real life episodes. Dallas SWAT on A&E TV follows the (surprise) Dallas SWAT team as they carry out no-knock warrants on unsuspecting bad guys. The videos provided in the preceding link allow the viewer to watch the SWAT team pump themselves up, destroy private property and drag dangerous perps from their homes. I’m still trying to understand why the police have a tank… probably to protect us from drug-dealing Soviets.

Nothing good can come of having the military patrolling our streets, and make no mistake, the police are becoming militarized, and doing so with the help of the Federal Government. How long before our towns are nothing more than caricatures of old Nazi movies where citizens rush home lest they be approached by soldiers asking for identification? ("Papers please!" But it must be spoken with a German accent. Also, any movie with "papers please," must also have the line, "You are veak, Fader, Veeeak!")

Maybe I’m overreacting. But I don’t think so. Since the Supreme Court threw out the "knock and announce" rule concerning police who serve warrants, there is nothing to stop SWAT teams from tearing off the side of your home, dragging you and your family out of your beds, seizing your belongings and shooting your pets while giving you little or no notice as to these invaders’ identity. Amusingly (or not), several newspaper investigations have shown that less than half of all no-knock warrants have resulted in contraband or arrests. I’m sure that fact is comforting to people who have watched helplessly as their small children were seized and handcuffed by armed men wearing black hoods.

Until we, the honest citizens, say "no more!" to an armed military in our streets, things will only get worse. How long before we are the occupied territory? How long before we are the ones trapped behind the "blue" curtain? How long before our neighbors are "disappeared" in the night?

Maybe I’m overreacting. But I don’t think so.

May 4, 2007
 
See that's just the problem, the government isn't the enemy, it's a tool like a powersaw. You use it properly, run it properly, keep it clean and in good condition and you'll get a LOT of good use out of it.

Let it run amok and it'll cut your damned fingers off (for a start).
 
This is not about the police. This is about local leaders (mayors and DAs) nation wide following the leadership of America's mayor Rudy G. If your city is going over to the darkness I suggest you get involved and stop it.
 
it's a tool like a powersaw. You use it properly, run it properly, keep it clean and in good condition and you'll get a LOT of good use out of it.
Let it run amok and it'll cut your damned fingers off (for a start).

Great analogy! Can I borrow that?
 
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

"Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."

- George Washington

These two statements fit our country so well it almost seems that George Washington was a prophet. Sadly, it takes no gift of prophecy to see deeply into human nature, merely wisdom. I fear for the Republic. :(

Part of the problem with the militarization of the police is the fact that the criminal justice system in our society has lost its philosophy of punishment and has become a training system for a small percentage of violent criminals. When the criminals can spend their time in prison working on stacks of weights to get stronger and training each other in how best to deal with and overcome law enforcement, then law enforcement officers will naturally alter their strategies and tactics to stay one step ahead. Given that we have a tool called "SWAT", it's inevitable that some administrator or politico will feel the need to justify the expense of training and equipping the tool by using it. Inevitably, that tool will be used in the wrong situation and someone will get hurt. I know it's a rough analogy, but I think it's a good one. I've seen it happen all too often. Tactical decisions made with political and budgetary motives in mind all too often lead to disaster. This is illustrated starkly by Ruby Ridge, Waco, and a host of other incidents that could have been handled in a much more low-key manner. I'm not sure how to fix the problem without the citizens taking action that it makes me sad to contemplate. :uhoh:

Edited to add:

Titan6: You nailed it.
 
Since the Supreme Court threw out the "knock and announce" rule concerning police who serve warrants

:rolleyes: The Supreme Court said that where violation of the knock & announce rule was not a proximate cause of discovering the evidence, they would not throw out the evidence - which isn't the same thing at all.

I always figure that if you have a good argument you don't need to "dress it up" in order to sell it.
 
Well, after that recent court decision to NOT hold that gent liable for beating the tar out of two cops who ILLEGALLY entered his house, I would hope that law abiding citizens who attempt to defend themselves against wrong-house-no-knocks also won't be hung from the yardarm. I can't see it, but I can hope it.
 
Citizens defending themselves against no-knocks have an unfortunate tendency to end up dead. Legal vindication, while in order, is hardly their primary problem.

I'm not a cop-hater, but I have to wonder whether the SWAT and pseudo-SWAT teams would be able to continue such tactics if they came up against citizens who had thought ahead and prepared themselves against the possibility of a future home invasion. How many police casualties would it take before they revised their approach?
 
See that's just the problem, the government isn't the enemy, it's a tool like a powersaw.
It's not a tool, because it's not inanimate. It's made up of people--namely, people who chose to seek out positions of power and authority. Such people can never be trusted, and they certainly can't be "used like a powersaw."

--Len.
 
It's not a tool, because it's not inanimate. It's made up of people--namely, people who chose to seek out positions of power and authority. Such people can never be trusted, and they certainly can't be "used like a powersaw."

Fine a horse then. You can break it and make it work for you or you can let it run and It'll break you. Happy now? :neener:
 
You can lead a horse to water. . . .

Sorry, but you had to have seen that one coming.:D
 
Titan6, nope. Just the fact that anyone who actively seeks power over others are likely mentally deranged, regardless of their rationalizing their motives.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it." -H. L. Mencken
 
This is not about the police. This is about local leaders (mayors and DAs) nation wide following the leadership of America's mayor Rudy G.

So what part do the police play?

They are "Just following orders" right?:barf:


TRhe police are as or more guilty as anyone else. The politicians are not the ones kicking in doors and shooting little old ladies.

You do realize that the police have volunteered to rape the Constitution right?
 
Last edited:
Following orders from corrupt political leaders is a choice. All choices have consequences.

One of those consequences in this case, is being just as guilty as those who gave them the orders should they carry them out.
 
“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster . . . for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

Friedrich W. Nietzsche (1844-1900)
German Philosopher and Poet

In their incessant wars on this and that, have the police become that which they fight?
 
Knock and Announce

One Bartholomew Roberts posted:

Quote:
"Since the Supreme Court threw out the "knock and announce" rule concerning police who serve warrants."
The Supreme Court said that where violation of the knock & announce rule was not a proximate cause of discovering the evidence, they would not throw out the evidence - which isn't the same thing at all.

I always figure that if you have a good argument you don't need to "dress it up" in order to sell it.​

In Hudson vs. Michigan, Justice Scalia (for the majority) wrote:

We recognized that the new constitutional rule we had
announced is not easily applied. Wilson and cases follow-
ing it have noted the many situations in which it is not
necessary to knock and announce. It is not necessary
when “circumstances presen[t] a threat of physical violence,”
or if there is “reason to believe that evidence would
likely be destroyed if advance notice were given,” id., at
936, or if knocking and announcing would be “futile,”
Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U. S. 385, 394 (1997). We re-
quire only that police “have a reasonable suspicion . . . under
the particular circumstances” that one of these grounds for
failing to knock and announce exists, and we have acknowl-
edged that “[t]his showing is not high.” Ibid.
When the knock-and-announce rule does apply, it is not
easy to determine precisely what officers must do. How
many seconds’ wait are too few? Our “reasonable wait time”
standard, see United States v. Banks, 540 U. S. 31, 41
(2003), is necessarily vague. Banks (a drug case, like this
one) held that the proper measure was not how long it
would take the resident to reach the door, but how long it
would take to dispose of the suspected drugs—but that such
a time (15 to 20 seconds in that case) would necessarily be
extended when, for instance, the suspected contraband was
not easily concealed. Id., at 40–41. If our ex post evaluation
is subject to such calculations, it is unsurprising that, ex
ante, police officers about to encounter someone who may
try to harm them will be uncertain how long to wait.​

Thus, the Supreme Court has said that if police officers "think" that they are in danger or that evidence may be destroyed by delaying action, then the police may enter without a knock-or-announce.

The problem arises with the fact that police believe that in every situation they are in danger or that evidence may be destroyed.

Read more at these links:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-1360P.ZO
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/06/no_knock_no_jok.html
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1150362317902

Rob Blackstock, Ph.D.
 
In Hudson vs. Michigan, Justice Scalia (for the majority) wrote:

Technically speaking, Justice Scalia was writing for a plurality, not a majority. Only four Justices signed on to Scalia's opinion. The fifth vote came from Kennedy who differed from Scalia in the analysis. That is important in future cases because it means that unless the case meets Kennedy's analysis, it will not get five votes. That is also the standard lower courts will apply to cases.

Read more at these links:

I've actually read all the opinions in that case (majority, concurrence and dissent) and some commentary relating to it. You can read my thoughts on the issue at the original discussion of the topic here at THR:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=205760

Suffice it to say that I don't agree with your synopsis of the case or your summary of it in your article for the reasons outlined in that thread. One issue in Hudson was whether the 3-5 second wait was long enough. The minority felt it was not and wanted to throw out the evidence. The majority felt that because the evidence discovered was not found as a result of the short wait and because the purpose of the knock and announce rule did not relate to the evidence discovered, the evidence should come in. Had the police here waited 15 seconds longer, there would have been no question that the evidence was not excludable (see Banks). I don't see how you can argue that Hudson v. Michigan "threw out the knock and announce rule" when the police in Hudson did actually knock and announce in that case. Particularly after Kennedy's concurrence makes it clear that his concurrence here is specific to these facts.
 
How many police casualties would it take before they revised their approach?
We keep hearing about how most "rank and file" police officers are pro gun rights ... more police casualties will just shrink the number of pro-gun police and feed the "us vs them" mentality of many police officers (especially the ones that refer to their fellow citizens as "civilians").

Unless we can change things from the top down, I see this getting worse and worse until it results in a full on Nazi/Soviet style police state (but haven't been in a very optimistic mood when it comes to the future of the Republic for some time now)
 
The problem arises with the fact that police believe that in every situation they are in danger or that evidence may be destroyed.
Which holds too much potential of abuse.
The standard of who decides needs to be taken away from the "state".
There is really no fear from police to violate anybody's "Rights".........that will get dealt with, if at all, at a later time..after the fact.

Until citizens start demanding that individual members of LE get arrested for violating "Rights"...and get jail time and sued for damages..... not much will happen.....it will be just a lawyer/court paperwork exercise.

Much like New Orleans and the Gun taking that took place. Nobody did any time.....just paperwork posturing.

The increase in militarization of the police......shows me that they (the police and courts)are not worried about peoples rights. Sharpening the teeth and claws of a tiger all the while thinking the cat will stay in it's legal cage.............stupid. Even more so when the cage is made by courts which serve "the system" more than the Bill of Rights.

The really sad thing is that, to this point,....."we the people" are not really worried about our "Rights" either.

sorry america....you can delegate your rights to an agency or group and think everything is fine.
(see my sig quote below)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top