Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
OMG! WTF! There's a SWAT Team at My House.
A high school senior in Orlando apparently had his home raided by the SWAT team after he playfully changed the word "defeated" to "crushed" in an article about a recent football game on the school's official website. He had been given access to the site by a teacher at the school and was authorized to make updates as requested.
According to the kid's own account (and thus far, I haven't seen the incident reported in a newspaper), the SWAT team came and confiscated a good deal of the his property, and charged him with two felonies.
After posting his story on Digg and Reddit yesterday, well, I'll let him explain :
Turns out that my High School is not going to follow through with any charges now that they know who did it and they wanted to be sure to let my family know before Christmas. Could it be that my blog making it to the front page of Digg made an impact...? Who knows.
Anyways, they dropped the two felony charges against me and I can pickup ALMOST all of my stuff from the police station. They decided to keep all the CDs and DVDs they took to make sure I don't have any pirated software.
Orlando, like a lot of places, has a history of using its SWAT team rather liberally and aggressively. They shot and killed a man named Michael Swimmer in 1998 in a raid that still cries out for more investigation. A series of wrong-door raids and raids in which the SWAT team was sent out to apprehend offenders police knew to be only small-time pot smokers also led to a pretty hard-hitting investigation by the Orlando Weekly.
|12.22.06 @ 6:34PM|#
I am going to go out on a limb and guess that it's going to turn
out that the kid's crimes where a lot more worse than orginally
reported. Which sucks, because it softens the impact in people's
minds about how over-blown the case is.
"I have cancer!"
"You poor thing!"
"No, I was just trying to get your sympathy, I really only have
gangrene legs."
"Fuck you."
|12.22.06 @ 6:48PM|#
You know, we joke sometimes about ripping the tag off a mattress, but I won't actually go through with it. Really.
|12.22.06 @ 6:49PM|#
Johnathan C
Part of me hopes that you are right, that there is a LOT more to
the story than the kid is saying.
In any event, the Orlando PD really needs to cut back on its use of
steroids.
D.A. Ridgely|12.22.06 @ 7:27PM|#
Best thing to do would be to follow the Akira MacKenzie approach. The kid's obviously a net loss to society, so let's abort him.
|12.22.06 @ 7:59PM|#
""I am going to go out on a limb and guess that it's going to
turn out that the kid's crimes where a lot more worse than
orginally reported."""
I wouldn't bet on it. Schools have been overzelous about words that
seem threating.
What you say: The concert was da bomb
What they hear: There's a bomb at the concert
RSDavis|12.22.06 @ 9:04PM|#
The increasing use of paramilitary-style raids for common
policework fills me with dread and worry for the future of this
country.
- R
The Wine Commonsewer|12.22.06 @ 9:06PM|#
DA Ridgely: :-)
Every time I post here a black Cobra flies slowly past the
windows.
Guy Montag|12.22.06 @ 10:56PM|#
Just a hunch, but I suspect that the next airings of "Off the
Hook" and "Off the Wall" should pick this up as a topic. Check
2600 for show times and
streams.
Caution: might have to filter out some of the Marxist hype from
Emmanuel and the gang, but they should cover a lot of valid stuff
too.
|12.22.06 @ 11:34PM|#
I wonder what police put in the affidavit supporting the application for the search warrant. Any ideas?
The Wine Commonsewer|12.22.06 @ 11:45PM|#
Brad, yes, and just remember........
Just 'cuz yer not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get
ya.
Larry A|12.23.06 @ 11:44AM|#
Every time I post here a black Cobra flies slowly past the
windows.
Don't sweat the small stuff. Newer model helicopters are in service
at the Federal and state level, so the Cobras have all been donated
to county and city cops.
|12.23.06 @ 11:56AM|#
Why should the SWAT team come to my house if I write something
like "I want our football team to CRUSH our opponents tonight." I
think the SWAT team needs to go back to junior high school and
learn what figurative speech is.
The more outrageous thing is that our taxes fund the SWAT to
supress free speech. There our real problems in America that
warrant SWAT attention.
With all this said and done, let's hope the SWAT doesn't come to my
house and take my computer and personal possessions.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.23.06 @ 1:09PM|#
Larry A
Newer model helicopters are in service at the Federal and state
level, so the Cobras have all been donated to county and city
cops.
That's BETTER?
Sheesh, it just sucks when all the new stuff actually is old. A
function of age I guess. So, what kind of helicopters are the feds
flying these days?
|12.23.06 @ 3:38PM|#
Um... I'm not entirely sure why the focus is being put on the
SWAT team in this story.
Isn't the issue here the questionable issue of felony charges and a
search warrant, and not about which group of cops was called on to
serve the warrant?
We know that Radley gets wood every time that "SWAT" pops up in the
news, but if his argument is that SWAT raids are a threat to public
safety, then this story has absolutely nothing to do with that
argument.
|12.23.06 @ 4:24PM|#
It's all relevant, Russ. The warrant might be justified if the school believed their site was being hacked, but there's no reason that such a warrant couldn't be served by regular officers. What risk could there be from a teen-aged web designer?
|12.23.06 @ 5:05PM|#
I still fail to see the relevance.
There are two separate, unrelated issues here.
1. Assuming that we're hearing the entire story, the charges and
warrant both sound completely ridiculous, regardless of who served
the warrant.
2. The warrant was executed safely and nobody was injured. The SWAT
team did exactly what it was asked to do, regardless of how stupid
the charges were.
So apart from satisfying Radley's fetish,
why is this a SWAT team story?
Now, I can agree that sending a SWAT team in this instance is
"overkill", but so what? Did it have any impact on either public
safety, or the legitimacy of the charges? No. Which is why the SWAT
team element of this story is totally irrelevant.
|12.23.06 @ 5:58PM|#
Disagree, Russ. The fact that they would execute a warrant
against a high school web designer by dispatching a SWAT Team
should be ample demonstration of just how low the bar is set for
sending out a bunch of gorillas with submachineguns.
That you don't find this troubling seems to show just how calloused
you are to it.
|12.23.06 @ 6:01PM|#
I can agree that sending a SWAT team in this instance is
"overkill", but so what?
So the problem is the habitual use of SWAT for everything that
leads to the safety problems. While there may not have been any
safety problems "this time," the problem is a raid performed by a
SWAT team is increasingly the first choice without regard to the
situation.
I mean sure it was just a parking ticket and nobody got hurt but
did they have to smash the window to make sure I would see it?
|12.23.06 @ 6:04PM|#
"That you don't find this troubling seems to show just how
calloused you are to it."
No, the fact that I don't sound the alarm for every irrelevant
episode means that at least one person here still thinks
rationally.
By crying wolf every time something insignificant happens, you find
it harder to get people to take you seriously when you try to focus
on what's important.
The SWAT team in this story... not important.
dhex|12.23.06 @ 6:17PM|#
"The SWAT team in this story... not important."
blank dvds can be turned into deadly weapons.
better safe than sorry.
|12.23.06 @ 6:39PM|#
"So the problem is the habitual use of SWAT for everything
that leads to the safety problems."
You're begging the question. Your argument rests on the unproven
assumption that SWAT teams are more dangerous to public safety.
This has not been proven.
You need to demonstrate that such raids ACTUALLY lead to a greater
incidence of injury or death to a) innocent bystanders, b) the
alleged offender being arrested, c) the officers making the
arrest.
Do the math yourself. CATO's very nice Interactive Raid Map over the
last 22 years,
reports 41 deaths of innocents, 21 deaths of non-violent offenders,
and 22 deaths or injuries deaths to police officers. That's 84
cases where public safety was compromised.
However, the online tool doesn't report injuries to either
offenders or innocents, so to account for these, let's double the
numbers. That would give us 168 such cases.
Balko's report claims that there are now 40k raids per year. Over
the 22 years, (conservativley assuming linear growth from a zero
base), that would be half a million such raids.
168 divided by half a million gives us a death or injury in about
0.034% of all raids, or one in about 3000 raids. Alternately, it
means that 99.97% of raids are executed safely.
Anyone making the argument that SWAT teams are a greater risk to
public safety will have to provide data to convince us that
conventional police arrests are executed safely significantly more
than 99.97% of the time.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.23.06 @ 7:34PM|#
We know that Radley gets wood...
Russ wins the thread. LOL.........
The Wine Commonsewer|12.23.06 @ 7:41PM|#
I'm concerned about sending a SWAT team to a high school
student's home particularly in view of the fact that he had a
password to get into the system. The whole thing stinks from
warrant to SWAT. Assuming, of course, we accept the story at face
value.
The reason the SWAT angle is important, if for no other, is the
tremendous waste of police resources. Back in the day when my good
buddy refused to pay a bogus traffic ticket on principle, the
county sent ONE, count em, Marshall, who knocked on the front door,
served the warrant, took him into custody, and transported him to
county lockup.
This incident is no more serious (on it's face) than an unpaid
speeding ticket. Sending the SWAT team wasted thousands of
dollars.
|12.23.06 @ 8:06PM|#
"Sending the SWAT team wasted thousands of
dollars."
Unless...
If the constable-commandos are on salary and spend their days
sitting around circle-jerking over their MP-5's and bullet-proof
vests, then it doens't cost anything more to send them to get the
job done
However, regardless of how the cost accounting shakes out, it's
still overkill.
|12.23.06 @ 8:06PM|#
Alternately, it means that 99.97% of raids are executed
safely.
Unfortunately, you seem to think these are impressive numbers.
Equally as unfortunate is that numbers for warrants that are served
without SWAT teams seem to be harder to find.
The question that needs begging is what is the efficacy advantage
of using SWAT instead of sending a pair of officers. Completely
disregarding the monetary cost, what is the difference in public
safety. If you can show that 99.97 is better than the alternatives,
I'll be more willing to conceed to your complaint.
|12.23.06 @ 8:23PM|#
Uh... Eddy,
I wasn't the one making the argument that SWAT teams are
dangerous.
You said it yourself:
"... the problem is the habitual use of SWAT for everything
that leads to the safety problems.
The burden of proof belongs on the proposed idea, not the
challenger of the idea.
|12.23.06 @ 8:26PM|#
Russ,
If you think the only thing that matters is that no one was hurt
this time, I don't know what to tell you. I think that there's a
world of difference between "Good afternoon, ma'am. My partner and
I have a warrant to search your home. We'll need you to wait
outside with Officer Smith." and sending in a unit raid the
house.
If the difference between a raid and a search is as negligible as
you claim , why not just do away with regular officers and make it
all SWAT, all the time?
|12.23.06 @ 8:57PM|#
Let me clarify. (So that you all stop putting words in my
mouth).
"If you think the only thing that matters is that no one was
hurt this time...".
First, I don't think that this is the only thing that matters. I've
already said I think it's overkill to send SWAT teams to arrest
teenagers with computers. That's not my argument.
"If the difference between a raid and a search is as negligible
as you claim..."
I never claimed this. (I hate it when people attribute to me things
I never said.) The difference is obviously far from negligible.
However it doesn't change the legitimacy (or in this case,
illegitimacy) of the warrant and charges. That is my first
point.
My main point is this: the argument that the use of SWAT teams
jeopardizes public safety is founded on ignorance. This amounts to
saying: "I haven't seen evidence regarding the relative safety
record of SWAT teams, therefore they must be more dangerous".
In Radley's report "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Raids in
America", he provides plenty of sensational anecdotes, but doesn't
actually compare the rates of injuries and deaths between SWAT and
conventional arrests (holding the type of arrest scenario
constant). He is careful to avoid directly making the public safety
argument, but insinuates it repeatedly, and everyone here has
bought it wholeheartedly without a shred of critical thought.
This same type of reasoning leads some people to be afraid of air
travel. Because they see lots of anecdotal evidence of plane
crashes, but don't see the data that demonstrate air travel to be
safer than road travel, they conclude that air travel must be more
dangerous.
You've all concluded that this is a public safety issue, and are
basing your arguments on that foundation, without actually
providing evidence to support the claim. I agree with the rest of
the argument against excessive use of SWAT teams, but am pointing
out the safety issue isn't a legitimate complaint. Not without
evidence.
When people adopt beliefs devoid of evidence, it's called
religion... not reason.
dhex|12.23.06 @ 9:04PM|#
it's not a public safety issue, it's a oh fuck they militarized the fucking police issue.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.23.06 @ 9:50PM|#
The other thing that correlates with this SWAT crap is the POleece always seem to make an effort to maximize inconvenience to the citizenry whenever there is a police matter. Today, they shut down six lanes of I-15, two days before Xmas, for maybe six hours. Traffic was immovable because there aren't any alternatives in this particular area. Don't know why, heard they were looking for a guy who stabbed someone in a store. But still, what could possibly warrant making those poor slobs sit in their cars for six hours? A seeming disregard for the well-being of the John Q.
|12.23.06 @ 10:27PM|#
Just 'cuz yer not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to
get ya.
Really, this sums up what it is to be a teenager. I look back at my
teenage years and think "Damn, I was paranoid" but every now and
then I think... maybe not.
|12.24.06 @ 3:21PM|#
There was a bomb on the website? uh, wait a sec...
;-)
So a student's house was raided, possessions taken, and he was
charged for two crimes because somebody didn't know he was
authorized to make changes to a school website? SWAT or no SWAT,
something's wrong here.
|12.24.06 @ 5:58PM|#
Damn, TWC, were you stuck in that C-Fuck on the 15? I didn't
hear on the radio *why* they'd closed it - we assumed it was an
accident. A *bad* accident. Like, toxic spill bad. Why else would
they close it for so long?
On a similar note, whenever there is a law enforcement fatality in
LA, they block off a large-ish section of downtown LA around the
Cathedral for several hours during morning rush hour, while they
have their funeral service. The traffic mess this causes can reach
for miles, back out onto several freeways, and can simply gridlock
downtown. I have always thought that they do this because they wish
to punish the public, when one of "their own" is killed. As if the
massively inconvenienced commuters were to blame for anything. But
I suppose it's easy to have contempt for the nice folks who just
keep on giving you money to buy toys!
bill|12.24.06 @ 11:17PM|#
That kid is an idiot. It appears from the article he was the web designer not the editor. He changed someone else's work. Just because he was given access to the site doesn't mean he had permission to CHANGE IT! Doesn't he read web news or watch MTV's "Class Pranks". This ain't the 50's were stealing the rival schools mascot was met with chuckles and a slap on the wrist. School officials nowadays have no sense of humor about this stuff. My god, they charge 5 year olds with sexual harassment for a butt pinch.
Jennifer|12.25.06 @ 11:12AM|#
That kid is an idiot. It appears from the article he was the
web designer not the editor. He changed someone else's
work.
In that case, sending a SWAT team after him makes perfect sense,
no?
|12.26.06 @ 7:48AM|#
Russ R, it doesn't what the percentages are. What matters is the amount of raids being conducted. As the amount of raids increases so do the amount of innocent deaths and injuries regardless (once again) of what the percentages are. This violates our inalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Not to mention that an innocent death is wrong no matter what percentages are being applied. Plus you (also) fail to account for possible fatigue. Everyone knows that fatigue is a critical occupational safety concern and that if workers (in this case SWAT team members) are fatigued due to being overworked, the percentage of mistakes will increase and lead to an even larger increase in the amount of accidental death or injury as well.
|12.26.06 @ 9:17AM|#
Brad,
That was a spectacularly weak argument if you're talking about the
choice between sending a SWAT team or sending traditional cops. You
seem to be assuming that only SWAT teams ever result in injuries or
deaths, while that sort of thing never happens in conventional
arrests.
The only way your argument: "As the amount of raids increases
so do the amount of innocent deaths and injuries regardless (once
again) of what the percentages are" could have any merit is if
you don't send a SWAT team you don't make an arrest at all. That's
an issue for the judge issuing the warrant (i.e. to arrest or not
arrest).
Otherwise, the percentages do matter. To factor public safety into
the decision of whether to send a SWAT team or conventional cops,
you absolutely need to know their relative safety records under the
relevant circumstances.
Without knowing the relative percentages (categorized by type of
arrest), you can't make the argument that sending a SWAT team
instead of conventional cops increases the risk to public safety.
So please stop making that argument.
I'm not even going to bother to respond to your "fatigue is a
critical occupational safety concern" argument except to point
out that it's also founded on assumptions for which you have even
less supporting evidence.
Seriously weak.
|12.27.06 @ 8:07AM|#
Russ R,
(I hate it when people attribute to me things I never
said.)
Same here Russ. Looks like the truth struck a nerve with you trying
to justify your main
point that "the use of SWAT teams jeapordizes public safety is
founded on ignorance" argument.
Your argument makes me wonder whether you do have an admiration and
advocation for pro-
leviathan and pro-centralized planning, with all of its'
"Without knowing the relative
percentages (categorized by type...)" or "relative safety
records" drivel when it comes to public safety. It also makes
me wonder if you are pro-police state.
With that said, I never once said anything (or cared) about
choosing "between sending a SWAT team or sending traditional
cops" nor did I make the assumption "that only SWAT teams
ever result in injuries or deaths, while that sort of thing never
happens in conventional arrests. That is your words not
mine!
However, I will say that abusing both SWAT and traditional cops by
using them when there is no justifiable REASON or REASONING does
cause an increase in innocent deaths and innocent injuries for both
violent and non-violent crimes; and especially for non-violent
crimes. I will leave this statement out there as fact without
stooping to your level in order to defend it.
Furthermore, your claim that The only way your argument...
could have any merit is if you don't send a SWAT team you don't
make an arrest at all. That's an issue for the judge
issuing the warrant (i.e. to arrest or not arrest). is so
asinine and convulated that it does not justify a counter argument
on my part.
Now to totally rebutt your "main point" (so that I can get on to
more productive things like cleaning the lint out of my navel) I
will offer my demonstration using a little common sense (with this
caveat for you) after reading your posts on this thread, which is;
I don't think it will matter, as God (or nature) did not give all
men and women the capacity to have nor exhibit common sense in the
first place.
So, after reading the executive summary only, and not having bought
Radley'report, I am not
certain which source he is citing for an estimate of 40,000 raids
per year.
Based off of that, I had to do a little web snoofing
myself - which was not too hard in this day and age with google
(and what not) - and I came up with a claim by Professor Peter
Kraska, who is a "expert on police militarisation from Eastern
Kentucky University" who stated in his book that in the 1980s there
were about 3,000 SWAT team deployments annually across the U.S.,
but who now says there are at least 40,000 per year.
Now, let me state here, that I am assuming this to be the source
Radley is citing, and I am assuming the professors numbers are
closer to the truth since our government is more famous for cooking
its' numbers like "scorched beans" compared to say Enron or
Worldcom.
What I will do, is use Professor Kraska's numbers of 3,000 SWAT
team deployments annually in the 1980's, and then the 40,000 per
year that he cited while making one more assumption that this
figure would have to be for the year 2000 - If it is not, it still
doesn't matter - and then I will apply your percentage (if this is
the ACTUAL safety factor?) that 99.97% of all SWAT
raids/deployments are executed safely.
Are you paying attention? Good, now here we go....
3,000 * .03% gives us .9 accidental deaths or injuries for
some year in 1980.
AND
40,000 * .03% gives us 12 accidental deaths or injuries for the
assumed year of 2000.
Now we find the increase in percentage terms in accidental
deaths or accidental injuries :
12 - .9 = 11.10
11.10 / .9 = 12.33%
12.33% is the increase in accidental deaths or
accidental injuries for incidents involving ALL
SWAT team deployments (responding to violent AND Nonviolent
criminals, innocent bystanderss, and not to even mention innocent
people) compared between the 1980's and the assumed year of 2000
based off of Professor Kraska's numbers.
I don't know what your cold logic is if you can't conclude that
this is indeed a public safety factor if this is indeed the actual
increase in accidental deaths or
accidental injuries whether this includes a)
innocent bystanders, b) the alleged offender being arrested, c) the
officers making the arrest.. or finally d) innocent people... which
you forgot to even mention so somebody has to do it.
To me and probably the majority of everyone else (with a lick of
common sense) this is a horrible consequence of the increased
militarization of our domestic law enforcement and its' policies
all in the name of SWAT served warrants, The War on Drugs or The
War on Some Kids Mistake for modifying someones story on a school
website.
End in the end, this still leaves us with a MAJOR dilemma since we
STILL have no meaningful data (from the government whether it be
local, federal or state) at this point (since the government cooks
their numbers like they are "scorching beans" based off of
overwhelming evidence and my experience of working
for Uncle Sam) to conclude any factual numbers as it relates to
accidental deaths or injuries for deploying SWAT teams to pursue
the apprehension of Americans who have committed a relatively
non-violent crime.
I would also have to say that it is probably safe to bet
that the actual increase in percentage terms for accidental
deaths or accidental injuries is far
greater for this subset of SWAT deployments.
NOTE: There is a study by the NTOA which states that 759 Swat team
deployments across the US, found half were for warrant service and
a third for incidents where suspects had barricaded themselves in a
building and 50 were for hostage situations. But once again, even
though these numbers are "scorched beans" my rational is still
valid.
Finally, as to your assertion that fatigue is not a critical
factor, and that it may not be
contributing to the increase as well, and that you are not even
going to respond... well, let me just say WGAF? Honestly...
|12.27.06 @ 10:38AM|#
Brad,
1. You still haven't proven that SWAT team arrests are more likely
to result in injury or death that conventional arrests.
2. You are still assuming that the alternative to sending a SWAT
team is to not make an arrest at all.
|12.27.06 @ 11:33AM|#
The difference is obviously far from negligible. However it
doesn't change the legitimacy (or in this case, illegitimacy) of
the warrant and charges. That is my first point.
You're a few years late on arguing your first point. Asking for a
warrant is a rubber-stamp procedure now so the review of the
legitimacy is so routine it isn't even considered a step in the
process anymore.
So now your first point is actually the third point in the way
things operate. SWAT teams are becoming the standard whenever the
warrant and charges aren't cut and dried. Instead of "shoot first
and ask for permission later," the use of warrants is supposed to
be "ask for permission first, then shoot." With the use of SWAT
teams, the situation has changed to "Grab a permission slip on your
way out the door, shoot, then let the division of labor disperse
the responsibility should someone ask questions."
Sam Franklin|12.27.06 @ 12:22PM|#
The burden of proof belongs on the proposed idea, not the
challenger of the idea.
The burden is the same on both the idea proposer and the idea
challenger.
This is not a tort case in a court of law. rather, this is an
informal policy discussion on the Internet. Although it is tempting
to claim "victory" in such an argument based on burdens of proof,
production and/or persuasion, that is not how it works here.
|12.27.06 @ 12:46PM|#
Sam,
All I'm saying is, unless you're going to provide some evidence
that SWAT teams are more dangerous than the conventional police
they replace, you can't use the "public safety" argument against
the use of SWAT teams.
Scattered anecdotes don't constitute evidence.
Sam Franklin|12.27.06 @ 2:09PM|#
All I'm saying is, unless you're going to provide some
evidence that SWAT teams are more dangerous than the conventional
police they replace, you can't use the "public safety" argument
against the use of SWAT teams.
My own personal suspicion is different. My own suspicion is that
SWAT raids are safer for the po po's, but less safe for the non-po
po's. While nobody has good numbers, and nobody trusts the numbers
from any partisan in this debate, my guess is that SWAT raids
effectively mean both that overall deaths are going down
probabilistically, but that the breakdown between police and
civilian deaths is changed somewhat, with the pile of dead people
containing fewer police relative to civilian victims.
That reall is a sort of dilema. Just to infuse this with some
hypothetical numbers:
(1) lets say under the old (non-SWAT) system that a certain number
of raids would cause 10 deaths: 9 police and one civilan;
(2) then let's say further, taken probabilistically and for the
same number and type of raids would kill 5 people: 2 police and 3
civilians
(3) If these were the true numbers, which is the better way? On the
one hand, 5 people is a lot less than 10 dead people. On the other
hand, police get paid to get shot at; while civilians do not.
|12.27.06 @ 7:41PM|#
1. You still haven't proven that SWAT team arrests are more
likely to result in injury or death that conventional
arrests.
2. You are still assuming that the alternative to sending a SWAT
team is to not make an arrest at all.
I wasn't trying to prove (1) nor was I assuming (2). Those are your
point and your assumption.
However, I think I proved both of my points.
That (1) as the frequency of SWAT raids go up on non-violent crimes
or warrant enforcement, the number of accidental deaths and
accidental injuries go up on a) innocent bystanders, b) the alleged
offender being arrested, c) the officers making the arrest.. or
finally d) innocent people.
That (2) fatigue is a factor or at least has the possibility to
contribute to the increases in point (1).
I accomplished this without even having to defend my second
point.
|12.27.06 @ 11:23PM|#
Russ R,
I just realized that you are probably correct on your first
point... and it shows I wasn't thinking rationally with my rebuttal
to you.
Having said that, you can't fault Radley for bringing up every
little incident (nor us as a whole) when we
can prove that overusing SWAT teams for
non-violent crimes and warrant searches does have a negative affect
on public safety and that it does lead to
an increase in accidental deaths and accidental injury all
around.
Let me apologize (if you will accept it) while I take a break to
wrap my mind around this a little more. I am still pissed off at
the whole situation and doubt if I am still thinking rationally. I
am going to order Radley's report, and maybe the Professor's, and
then I hope to be able to offer some advice as well as constructive
criticism.
|12.28.06 @ 4:08AM|#
Russ R - I'm not even going to bother to respond to your
"fatigue is a critical occupational safety concern" argument except
to point out that it's also founded on assumptions for which you
have even less supporting evidence.
Here
is a proposal solicitation from ncjrs (in pdf format) which appears
to back my argument up. The proposal section itself states there is
evidence "that a large proportion of officers are excessively
fatigued on the job;"
|12.29.06 @ 6:46AM|#
"3,000 * .03% gives us .9 accidental deaths or injuries for
some year in 1980.
AND
40,000 * .03% gives us 12 accidental deaths or injuries for the
assumed year of 2000.
Now we find the increase in percentage terms in accidental deaths
or accidental injuries :
12 - .9 = 11.10
11.10 / .9 = 12.33
12.33% is the increase in accidental deaths or accidental injuries
for incidents involving ALL SWAT team deployments (responding to
violent AND Nonviolent criminals, innocent bystanderss, and not to
even mention innocent people) compared between the 1980's and the
assumed year of 2000 based off of Professor Kraska's
numbers.
Kids,
this is a very important lesson. Never let yourself get angry when
you are trying to prove a point, because the chance that you will
make a mistake is greatly increased no matter how simple the point
you are trying to make.
Looking over my calculation above, I realized that I totally forgot
to move the decimal point two places to the right.
If I had, I would have arrived at the real
increase (percentage wise) in accidental deaths and accidental
injuries, which is actually 1,233%.
That is a huge discrepancy! LOL!
So, to reiterate... unless you want to make a complete fool out of
yourself, never, never, never (and I mean never) let yourself get
angry when you are trying to prove a point.
Back to my humble pie!
Frank|12.29.06 @ 1:30PM|#
Brad,
Who cares about your math? You failed to prove your point because
you didn't compare the SWAT team death/injury rate with that of
traditional police action, OR, prove that without SWAT teams being
used, nothing would be done. Let me be clear: Without proving one
of the two following;
1. That SWAT team actions are more dangerous than a traditional
police action.
2. That if SWAT was left home, nothing would be done.
You simply can not use the public safety argument. Allow me to
demonstrate. Surgery has gone up in use over the last two hundred
years, and it kills people every year, so we need to stop doing it.
That is the same thing you are doing with the SWAT teams. You are
assuming that the alternative rate is zero deaths, without proving
it.
Let me be crystal. You can make any other argument you like (moral,
legal, whatever) that SWAT teams are overused. But, to make a
public safety argument against them, you need the facts to back
that up.
Your fatigue question is equally specious. Without proof that
traditional police are not that fatigued, you have proven nothing,
because you have ignored the alternative.
Now, to be clear, I am against using SWAT teams as often as they
are used, on moral, legal, common sense, and simply aesthetic
grounds. I am not saying you are wrong in your larger point. I am
merely pointing out that your argument is totally wrong.
If you want to argue based on the facts, you have to have them.
|12.30.06 @ 4:58AM|#
Frank,
In retrospect I agree that I failed to disprove Russ R's point
because I didn't compare the SWAT team death/injury rate with that
of traditional police action. I also agree that it would be great
if it could be proved.
But, then again this is almost next to impossible to prove since
many traditional police are over militarized, and many traditional
police augment SWAT teams as well. There is also no reliable data
being provided by the very people (law enforcement and government)
who are supposed to actually protect us from violent criminals and
violent crimes.
To say nothing would be done if SWAT teams weren't being used is
incorrect, because of course something would be done if traditional
cops were used to enforce warrants, and probably much safer. But I
can concede that sometimes a SWAT team may be better to apprehend a
violent criminal if the accused were failed to have been served a
warrant or apprehended by a traditional law enforcement role. This
is especially if the accused is holding innocent people hostage.
Without a doubt, this is one of the scenarios where a SWAT team
would be a viable option.
I also think that it would be relatively easier to prove that over
using both SWAT and over militarized traditional
police to pursue non-violent crimes leads to an abuse of public
safety.
I think I proved that I can use the public safety argument more
effectively than you (or anyone else) can defend against and back
it up with facts... just look at the math.
And to compare surgery in this case, which by the way is used to
save lives, to a irrational law enforcement policy which is leading
to an increase in accidental deaths or accidental injury is
absolutely silly.
Let me be crystal clear also. I don't care if fatigue is equally
specious to you or anyone else either. At least the U.S. Department
of Justice believes it could lead to an increased danger to public
safety (as evidence in the link I provided a couple of posts
above), and they are soliciting help to actually formulate some
kind of program to deal with it.
However, in light of the fact that law enforcement is severely
undermanned and will continue to be, I doubt they will be able to
do anything about it with any plan they finally implement. As a
result, fatigue will continue to contribute to the public's safety
and to my argument as well.
|12.30.06 @ 7:52PM|#
Let me clarify also:
My main point was the number of accidental deaths and injuries
(associated with using SWAT teams) will rise even if the public
safety factor stays constant - and I proved that. This in itself is
unacceptable because these deaths and injuries are tied to innocent
people, police officers, and nonviolent offenders. That might be
weak to some, but it is not to me, and to be upset about that shows
strength in character.
We should (also) not be duped into assuming that the public safety
factor has stayed constant at 99.7 percent year after year. That is
the burden of the state to prove. Likewise, I think all of us can
agree that the state has not provided us with
a) the actual number of SWAT raids per year with the actual number
of accidental deaths or accidental injuries
nor
b) the actual number of traditional law enforcement raids per year
with the actual number of accidental deaths or injuries
So yes, I can concede to Russ R. And, I am not proud of the way I
attacked him when I was defending my argument and I apologize. The
way I attacked him by defending my argument just goes to show that
Russ was right and that he was the only one thinking rationally at
the time.
To sum it up, If the state had (or will) provide us with a) and b),
I am certain that we would (all) have an even more compelling
argument to make.
In addition, the state (our executive and legislative branch) is
the one who has created much of the violence with its' WoD by
creating a black market in recreational drugs in the first place.
The state is also the one atacking our freedom and causing needless
death with with its doomed law enforcement practices. It is also no
wonder that the Judicial branch of our government is going along
with this in many cases because our higher courts are stacked with
judges who have been appointed and conferred by the "activist"
executive and legislative branch of our current government.
With that said, nobody gains the high ground (including anybody
here) by ridiculing Radley becuse he is "getting wood" every time a
SWAT team is used to enforce warrants against nonviolent offenders
or offenses and then he reports it.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245