Government Goons Murder Puppies!The drug war goes to the dogs.

Reason ^ | April 2006 | Radley Balko

[JTN]

In the course of researching paramilitary drug raids, I’ve found some pretty disturbing stuff. There was a case where a SWAT officer stepped on a baby’s head while looking for drugs in a drop ceiling. There was one where an 11-year-old boy was shot at point-blank range. Police have broken down doors, screamed obscenities, and held innocent people at gunpoint only to discover that what they thought were marijuana plants were really sunflowers, hibiscus, ragweed, tomatoes, or elderberry bushes. (It’s happened with all five.)

Yet among hundreds of botched raids, the ones that get me most worked up are the ones where the SWAT officers shoot and kill the family dog.

I have two dogs, which may have something to do with it. But I’m not alone. A colleague tells me that when he and other libertarian commentators speak about the 1993 raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco many people tend to doubt the idea that the government was out of line when it invaded, demolished, and set fire to a home of peaceful and mostly innocent people. But when the speaker mentions that the government also slaughtered two dogs during the siege, eyes light up, the indifferent get angry, and skeptics come around. Puppycide, apparently, goes too far.

One of the most appalling cases occurred in Maricopa County, Arizona, the home of Joe Arpaio, self-proclaimed “toughest sheriff in America.” In 2004 one of Arpaio’s SWAT teams conducted a bumbling raid in a Phoenix suburb. Among other weapons, it used tear gas and an armored personnel carrier that later rolled down the street and smashed into a car. The operation ended with the targeted home in flames and exactly one suspect in custody—for outstanding traffic violations.

But for all that, the image that sticks in your head, as described by John Dougherty in the alternative weekly Phoenix New Times, is that of a puppy trying to escape the fire and a SWAT officer chasing him back into the burning building with puffs from a fire extinguisher. The dog burned to death.

In a massive 1998 raid at a San Francisco housing co-op, cops shot a family dog in front of its family, then dragged it outside and shot it again.

When police in Fremont, California, raided the home of medical marijuana patient Robert Filgo, they shot his pet Akita nine times. Filgo himself was never charged.

Last October police in Alabama raided a home on suspicion of marijuana possession, shot and killed both family dogs, then joked about the kill in front of the family. They seized eight grams of marijuana, equal in weight to a ketchup packet.

In January a cop en route to a drug raid in Tampa, Florida, took a short cut across a neighboring lawn and shot the neighbor’s two pooches on his way. And last May, an officer in Syracuse, New York, squeezed off several shots at a family dog during a drug raid, one of which ricocheted and struck a 13-year-old boy in the leg. The boy was handcuffed at gunpoint at the time.

There was a dog in the ragweed bust I mentioned, too. He got lucky: He was only kicked across the room.

I guess the P.R. lesson here for drug war opponents and civil libertarians is to emphasize the plight of the pooch. America’s law-and-order populace may not be ready to condemn the practice of busting up recreational pot smokers with ostentatiously armed paramilitary police squads, even when the SWAT team periodically breaks into the wrong house or accidentally shoots a kid. I mean, somebody was probably breaking the law, right?

But the dog? That loyal, slobbery, lovable, wide-eyed, fur-lined bag of unconditional love?

Dammit, he deserves better.

Radley Balko is a policy analyst with the Cato Institute.

[Leatherneck_MT]

"I thought it was a convenient way of asserting absolute police power and setting the precedent that we really have no rights."

Sooner or later people will begin to shoot back.

Just make sure it's a headshot to bypass the body armor.

[Freedom_no_exceptions]

I have no idea where you're going with your post. You jump all over the place. Legalization would mean disbanding pharmacies? Costs to "society"? Smuggling of legal products? Addicts killing people over a cheap, legal product? "Free" drugs paid for by the public? Where did you come up with all of this? Until you demonstrate, using logic and reason, how any of these catastrophes would occur as a result of not putting people into cages for using drugs, I'll leave you alone to continue your acid trip.

[SampleMan]

You are the only one bringing up the idea of "free" drugs.

That's because legalization doesn't solve any problem, accept it keeps pot heads from getting hassled. The probelm is what druggies do to get the money. So am I to assume all the proponents here are against providing free drugs?

[immigration lady]

depends on which people...;-)

[beezdotcom]

depends on which peopleanimals...;-)

There, I fixed it...I don't much care for squirrels...

[SampleMan]

I have no idea where you're going with your post. You jump all over the place.

That's called "hitting all bases". I've obviously given this much more thought than you have. You haven't thought more than one move ahead. Your entire plan appears to be "legalize drugs man". I've heard the argument for 20 years from people that HAVE given it complete thought and the ONLY ones that make sense are the people who take a Darwin approach. Kill the drugies fast and have less trouble. Although that makes sense to me, it is a bit less caring that my conscience will allow. If the things I discussed take you by surprise then you've never really entered into a legalization discussion before, and you've never thought out the follow ons. I often overestimate people. Thanks for the correction.

[SampleMan]

I have a quick idea for you. Go down to your local bus stop at 3 AM with a friend. You take out a five dollar bill and wave it around. Have your friend announce that he's got 10 rocks of crack he'll sell for $5. You'll get a quick lesson on the value of "cheap drugs".

Do you think it will hurt less getting beaten for $5 than it would for $100?

[tacticalogic]

That's because legalization doesn't solve any problem,

Do you think there would be an problems solved by holding the New Deal Commerce Clause (and by extension the federal drug war) to be unconstutional?

[SampleMan]

It would solve a lot of problems for pot heads, and of course giving up on law enforcment would reduce the costs of law enforcment.

[tacticalogic]

It would solve a lot of problems for pot heads, and of course giving up on law enforcment would reduce the costs of law enforcment.

I take it you don't see any downside to "living document" interpretations of the Constitution.

[SampleMan]

Tell me again about the section of the Constitution that makes drug use a unenfringable right? Regulation and taxation of alcohol was certainly considered constitutional by George Washington.

[middie]

Well and necessarily said. The genesis of the current problem is not the petty criminal but rather, the toady politician. They each engage in the "I can be tougher on crime than my opponent," rant. It means nothing and is counter productive and results in the morass that your wise post illustrates. Morons like these politicos pander to the simple, easy, uncomplicated and wrong solution.

Next comes the standard response by non-thinking adults who wouldn't know an intelligent or analytical thought if one bit them on the ankle. They come back with the brillant retort like: "Well, hey man, if you can't do the crime, don't do the crime." How wise and overwhelmingly sagacious. But, these are the same idiots to whom the politicians pander. They represent the lowest common denominator of the dull normal segment of our population; a majority of the common voter.

[middie]

See my #152 in reply to TKDietz--it applies to your comment.

[tacticalogic]

Tell me again about the section of the Constitution that makes drug use a unenfringable right? Regulation and taxation of alcohol was certainly considered constitutional by George Washington.

I never told you that for the first time. We aren't talking about taxation, we're talking about regulating commerce. Specifically we're talking about the federal government regulating the internal commerce of the States.

[SampleMan]

Specifically we're talking about the federal government regulating the internal commerce of the States.

So you're hoping to find the WOD unconstitutional based on the argument that illegal drugs (1) Constitute commerce and (2) that commerce doesn't cross state lines. If I were going to hang my hat on something to show federal overreach, this would not be it. About 70 years of cases are going to get tossed in front of the Supremes showing that drugs extensively cross national and state borders. Are legal drugs capable of being regulated in your world view, or is it just illegal drugs that can't be regulated? What of smuggling? Are all goods out of the reach of the government to regulate, or is it just illegal drugs? Were the tariffs that were in effect from 1786 illegal or was it just the enforcement of the tariffs that were illegal? Are tariffs legal, but prohibition not? What of 10,000% tariffs? Please clarify.

[jospehm20]

"you think it's OK for your unleashed dogs to attack and maul and send to the hospital anyone who happens to place a foot on your property -- then be prepared for the consequences, even if those consequences are "unfair".

My yard is posted with no trespassing and beware of dog signs. The law does not require my dogs to be leashed in my yard and nobody, not even the police, have a "right" to trespass on my property and kill my dogs for defending it. If they were to knock on the door and ask me to restrain my dogs I probably would, but SWAT teams are confused. They believe they are military units and do not operate as civilian police should. They just trespass as they wish and shoot the "enemy" dogs in most cases. IMO SWAT teams are out of control and are used to often for even fairly mundane tasks.

[JTN]

No. Its because they don't have the money. Brain dead druggies will never have the money and they'll kill for the fix, they don't care if its $5 or $100.

Research has been done on this subject, and the conclusion of the research is that prohibition increases crime.

Homicide Rates and Substance Control Policy

My research indicates that the theory of the primary cause of violent crime in the United States which is most consistent with the available data is a violent black market caused by the War on Drugs today, and Prohibition in the 1920’s.

...

The results of the regression analyses (table 1) support the hypothesis that the prohibition of alcohol or drugs is the primary cause of violent crime in the United States.

...

Bruce Benson et al. (1992: 679) performed a cross-sectional analysis of data from 67 Florida counties in 1986 and 1987 to determine if property crime is positively related to the intensity of drug enforcement activities. Harold Brumm et al. (1995: 509) examined data on 57 cities in 32 states in 1985 to determine if homicide rates are positively correlated with the percentage of a communities law enforcement resources that are devoted to the enforcement of drug laws. Both property crime and violent crime were determined to be positively correlated with the intensity of drug enforcement activities.

...

The remaining question is what the strong correlation between the homicide rate, the United States’ substance control policy, and, during the later half of the twentieth century the United States’ weapons control policy, means. One possible theory for the correlation between the homicide rate and the substance control proxy is that homicides are caused by drug and alcohol use, and therefore homicides increase as drug and alcohol arrests increase. This theory does not explain the data. I have shown in table 1 that the fit between the homicide rate and the drug use rate is very poor, but this result is of somewhat limited value since drug use data is only available from 1975 to 1997 and none of the other proxies are significant during this time period. The best argument against the theory that substance abuse causes crime is the end of prohibition. The end of prohibition by the repeal of the 18th amendment in 1933 was a political choice unrelated to a change in alcohol use. This political choice was soon followed by a large decrease in the homicide rate. This indicates that the theory which is most consistent with the data is that changes in the homicide rate are responses to changes in substance control policy. I therefore conclude that the best theory of the primary cause of violent crime in the United States is a violent black market caused by the War on Drugs today, and Prohibition in the 1920’s.

See also:

Violence and the U.S. Prohibitions of Drugs and Alcohol(pdf)

This paper examines the relation between prohibitions and violence using the historical behavior of the homicide rate in the United States. The results document that increases in enforcement of drug and alcohol prohibtion have been associated with increases in the homicide rate and auxilliary evidence suggests this positive correlation reflects a causal effect of prohibition enforcement on homicide. Controlling for other potential determinants of the homicide rate - the age composition of the population, the incarceration rate, economic conditions, gun availability, and the death penalty - does not alter the conclusion that drug and alcohol prohibition have substantially raised the homicide rate in the United States over much of the past 100 years.

...

[T]he estimates presented here suggest the homicide rate is currently 25-75% higher than it would be in the absence of drug prohibition.

[tacticalogic]

So you're hoping to find the WOD unconstitutional based on the argument that illegal drugs (1) Constitute commerce and (2) that commerce doesn't cross state lines. If I were going to hang my hat on something to show federal overreach, this would not be it. About 70 years of cases are going to get tossed in front of the Supremes showing that drugs extensively cross national and state borders. Are legal drugs capable of being regulated in your world view, or is it just illegal drugs that can't be regulated? What of smuggling? Are all goods out of the reach of the government to regulate, or is it just illegal drugs? Were the tariffs that were in effect from 1786 illegal or was it just the enforcement of the tariffs that were illegal? Are tariffs legal, but prohibition not? What of 10,000% tariffs? Please clarify.

James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell

13 Feb. 1829Letters 4:14--15

For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.

What is it about that you don't understand?

[MPJackal]

"The original poster's statement is, in fact, true. They waited for hours and even had food sent in while kids bled to death inside. I remember it vividly."

What he said was "In Columbine they cowered outside while innocent schoolkids were being shot."

That is not true. One officer was on site at 12:05. He and other officers assisted kids escaping while the SWAT team prepared for entry. The two pieces if shit committed suicide at 12:20. 15 Minutes is hardly time to prepare a tactical entry. And I would not call the cops actions "Cowering"

[MPJackal]

Check out http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/frameset.exclude.html

I would not call the actions of the cops cowering. And I am sick of pussies that sit in nice back and say they would have save the day. Those two pieces of shit committed suicide at 12:20. 15 minutes after the first cop arrived. Do you think the fact the cops were there motivated the early suicide? The plan had been to kill EVERYONE.