Posted on 04/05/2006 12:57:02 PM PDT by 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.
I would. Maybe you should get some actual FACTS before you bloviate.
What Went Wrong At Columbine by Larry Pratt
Brian Rohrbough is the father of one of the victims at Columbine. In an interview I conducted with him for my talk show Live Fire, my listeners were informed of the continuing lawsuits pursued by Rohrbough to pry the information from the authorities who have engaged in a massive cover-up.
Rohrbough accuses the police of having been cowards. Most of the officers he hastens to add wanted to go in, but the first officers on the scene became cowards. They had a gun fight with the killers and ran to hide behind their cars instead of running into the school.
Their cowardice soon became the orders from above, ultimately from the Sheriff himself.
There was about seven minutes before the killers killed anyone inside the school (two had been killed outside, including Rohrbough's son). Obviously, if the officers had gone into the building immediately, there is a great likelihood that many lives could have been saved.
It is now known that the police waited for three hours after they knew the killers were dead before they finally entered the building. This was the time during which a teacher bled to death in plain sight of the world.
Your source is CNN?
LOL!
I haven't bothered to research the laws in your state (and I'm sure you haven't either), but if you lived in Florida, not only do the police have a "right" to trespass on your property and kill your dogs, but you can be sued by the police for injuries.
"The power to regulate trade is a compound technical phrase, to be expounded by the sense in which it has usually been taken, as shewn by the purpose to which it has usually been applied. To interpret it with a literal strictness, excluding whatever is not specified, would exclude even the retaliating and extorting power against the unequal policy of other nations, which is not specified, yet is admitted by all to be included...
Letter to W. C. Rives, January 10, 1829
Is a poisonous and ruinous product shipped in from a foreign power able to be regulated? No doubt you will now turn to asking why the local PCP lab selling to local kids is a federal issue. That is at least a good question, best answered by explaining why there should be no federal regulation of prescription drugs and the FDA should be disbanded. As you can't justify regulating antibiotics, but not PCP. Or perhaps you do want to justify that?
I am a firm believer that the Federal government is too involved in state matters, but the WOD would be my last choice as an example, and certainly the last issue I would want to tie my banner to. The only people that are going to get excited about it are crack heads. Lazy, shiftless, and brain numb aren't exactly the qualities you want in your staunch supporters.
I admire your push to roll back federalism. I highly recommend you choose a different horse.
Are these the same reserchers that show that gun bans work?
I have no doubt that legalization would lead to lessen some crimes. There would be less smuggling for starters. The Europeans are living through a crime wave right now that is growing and growing at an inverse rate to their drug enforcement. One might ask why people in a nanny state would commit such crimes, especially with cheap drugs?
Tell me again about the section of the Constitution that makes drug use a unenfringable right?
The 14th makes clear that governments cannot deprive people of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. - In other words, laws must be both written & enforced using Constitutional due process.
Justice Harlan on due process:
"-- The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . "
Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S. at 543, 81 S.Ct., at 1777
Thus we see that prohibitory laws violate due process, since they declare you guilty by mere possession of the 'sinful/illegal' object.
I admire your push to roll back federalism. I highly recommend you choose a different horse.
Everyone has their favorite piece of the federal pie. You're apparently not willing to give up yours, or at least get right with the Constitution by refusing to support it without an amendment.
Now, you would have thought that James Madison, the author of the Commerce Clause, would have said something if he believed that "to regulate" did not include "to prohibit".
tacticalogic would have us believe that "to regulate" has three different meanings when used in the same constitutional clause.
No, these are the same researchers that show that gun bans don't work. An example from each:
Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country AnalysisI have no doubt that legalization would lead to lessen some crimes. There would be less smuggling for starters. The Europeans are living through a crime wave right now that is growing and growing at an inverse rate to their drug enforcement. One might ask why people in a nanny state would commit such crimes, especially with cheap drugs?Vioence rates differ dramatically across countries. A widely held view is that these differences reflect differences in gun control and/or gun availability, and certain pieces of evidence appear consistent with this hypothesis. A more detailed examination of this evidence, however, suggests that the role of gun control/availability is not compelling.
Disparities between the poor and the rich are often considered causes of our high crime rate, but the United States has not only one of the world's highest crime rates, but also one of the world's largest middle classes. The religious right claims America's huge crime rate is caused by a break-down of family values. This would require family values breaking down suddenly in 1907, returning in 1933, and suddenly breaking down again in 1964. Many liberals believe that America's large crime rate is due to our lack of gun-control laws, but America's gun-control policy has changed little throughout this century. There is no way gun control can explain the enormous fluctuations in America's homicide rate. The United States government's substance control policies are the only answer. The only way to lower America's violent crime rate, short of turning the United States into a totalitarian state, is through ending the War on Drugs.
Rising unemployment rates might be a good place to start looking for your answer. Crime rates are influenced by many factors. Looking at a change in drug policy in some country and then seeing if anything changes without looking at other confounding factors is worthless.
That is why research, like that I linked above, is so valuable. It controls for other factors which influence the crime rate, and concludes that they alone do not account for the difference.
James Madison was Secretary of State under Thomas Jefferson in 1802 when alcohol sales to the Indians were prohibited under Congress' power "to regulate commerce with the Indian Tribes"
[the tribes were our adversaries]
and when all trade with Europe was prohibited (see Jefferson's Embargo, 1807) under Congress' power "to regulate commerce with foreign Nations.
'Regulating commerce' with adversaries/enemies can include prohibiting trade with them.
Now, you would have thought that James Madison, the author of the Commerce Clause, would have said something if he believed that "to regulate" did not include "to prohibit".
I'm sure Madison would have "said something" if he intended to give Congress the power to prohibit trade "among the several states"; -- and I'm sure the states representatives would have rode him out of town on a rail for suggesting such a stupid idea.
The US Congress & government has no power to prohibit trade between the States of the Union. -- They only have the power to reasonably regulate.
tacticalogic would have us believe that "to regulate" has three different meanings when used in the same constitutional clause.
robertpausen would have us believe that "to regulate" can not be used to differentiate when we trade with friends, -- and potential or real enemies.
Bobby has an agenda, -- to empower governments at all levels with the ability to prohibit anything, for any reason.
"One theme that keeps emerging the more I write about this SWAT stuff is that longtime police officers have grown really wary of the militant, cowboy culture among younger cops. I don't agree with everything in the following email, sent to me ealier this week in response to the Reason piece on puppycide. But the part about older cops being skeptical of the military influence creeping into the local police department is consistent with what other cops have told me:"
As a lifelong supporter of Law Enforcement allow me to say: It is now in some cases sadly attracting the wrong element of wanna be tough guys. The old guys call them "the new breed" and it ain't a compliment. Some younger ones in particular seem to relish weilding their authority, frequently use profanity, and a very, very small number border on sadistic. I don't know how the MMPI didn't weed them out.
Their mommy sat them in front of too many episodes of "COPS."
My friend was the assistant Deputy District Attorney and is now a Judge in the Criminal Division. The Sherriff's Dept asked him how to staff the SWAT team they were forming. His answer:
"Ask for volunteers, then take that list of names... and toss it in the trash. That'll eliminate the Cowboys."
Drugs are a scourge. It is not a "victimless crime" as some aging ponytailed old hippies allege. Heroin and Meth wrecked hundreds of thousands of lives. I watched my stepson slide into hell over his drug addiction and he never recovered. He's now 35 living in a beat up trailer park either blasted out of his skull or drunk as a pig every day of his life. And it all started before I met his mother with weed. It IS a "gateway drug." I'll quote him: " I don't have a problem." This is while he sittng in a freezing trailer with no lights because he spent all his money on "altering his conciousness. "
But "Dynamic Entry" has become the preferred method of affecting arrests by many departments all too often on the wrong house due to sloppy police work or bad intel. I've read of cops doing this on the word of felony convicted confidential Informants with zero credibility finding out after the fact that the suspect had moved a year before. A simple call to the public utility companies or a credit bureau address update would have verified the address. Level Three body armor and an MP-5A does nothing to raise your score on the Stanford-Binet IQ scale.
I used to handle Police Canines twenty years ago. Shootng a violent Pit Bull or Mastiff may occasionally be necessary (OC spray rarely stops a Pit, bullets can fail to penetrate the cranial vault ) if the animal is protecting some MS-13 banger who uses the animal as a weapon.
Shooting someone's harmless pet for fun is a window into a sick soul. Chasing a terrified puppy into a burning house earns you a special place in hell.
" I should note here that the Reason piece wasn't meant to be a cop-bashing piece. It was more of a comment on reaction to stories of SWAT excess, how people tend to shrug off the latest no-knock resulting in death or injury of a nonviolent pot smoker, but seem to get genuinely pissed off when they hear that the family dog took fire, too."
Yea I saw your source too, much more credible. Nothing like a guy with an agenda to get your info.
Larry Pratt (Gun Owners Of America) has a lot more credibility around here than the liberal CNN.
Tacticalogic,
Sorry for the delay in response, I took my family camping.
You have identified me as a believer in the existence of a Federal government. I concur. I don't think a loose confederation would serve us well. This issue was settled twice with History on the side of a stronger Federal government than you would like. Doesn't mean specifically that you are wrong, but you are going to need a stronger argument than the WOD.
Just for clarification I also don't like the pure libertarian view of privatized police, fire/rescue, etc.
Now, as I said, I think the Federal government has too big of a roll in the collective governace of this country. I base that both on Constitutional grounds and on practical grounds (I don't think its working out so good).
Before charging headlong down the path of federal excommunication, you need to give a little thought to the devil you don't know. One of the primary reasons the federal government was able to so easily enlarge its reach, was because there was so much corruption, abuse of power, and inneffectiveness in local governments. There is absolutely no reason to think that the states would "legalize" drugs, some might, most wouldn't. Some might return to a prohibition on alcohol and create one on tobacco. Without federal oversight, state border checkpoints might likely become common, to check for prohibited items. A small town sheriff in partner with the local magistrate can be extremely powerful, "How much money you got boy?" New Orleans ring a bell? I've had several friends robbed at gun point in NO, by the police.
So you can make your Constitutional arguments for restricting the Federal government to its size of 1786, and I'll agree with some of it. But its naive to think that you are going to have an easier time correcting the abuses of state government than the federal government. In fact, it was the national spotlight that served to clean up a lot of local corruption.
Out of curiosity, how do you propose to legalize drugs? Are you suggesting that the federal government force the states to legalize?
Before you throw out the bath water, determine how you are going to deal with the baby.
Should have included you in my post #175.
"Legalizing drugs" is not the objective. Putting the decision back where it belongs within the original architecture of the Republic is.
That's called "asset forfeiture".
RP would have us believe there is no difference between regulating commerce "among the several states" and "with foreign nations", that the relationship between the federal government and States is no different than it's relationship with foreign governments.
I beg to differ, but I'm just basing my opinion on all of these posts.
But just for the record:
1. You are not for legalization.
2. You're problem with the WOD isn't the enforcement, abuses, or money spent, but the derived authority of the enforcer and the treasurer?
Got it. I'll work on getting the federal gov. out of classrooms and you can work on getting the to stop chasing drug runners.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.