(Oct 10, 2016, 08:56 PM)goigle Wrote: [ -> ]First off, you need to specifically cite that 99% and 7% statistic if you're going to be asking others to cite theirs.
The 99% statement I made was an expression, and I apologize for any confusion that may have caused. However I cited the 7% statistic in a previous post in this thread and saw no reason for redundancy. It's from a study conducted by the American Civil Liberties Union which can be found
here (PDF warning). A summary of the study can be found
here.
goigle Wrote:Yes, MRAPs are frequently used for drug raids because firearms are frequently found in drug raids.
In the summary article I linked, one statistic is pointed out:
Quote:In at least 36 percent of the SWAT raids studies, no contraband of any kind was found. The report notes that due to incomplete police reports on these raids this figure could be as high as 65 percent.
Also a quote from the ACLU report is noted:
American Civil Liberties Union Wrote: . . . incident reports for search warrant executions, especially in drug investigations, often contained no information about why the SWAT team was being sent in, other than to note that the warrant was “high risk,” or else provided otherwise unsubstantiated information such as “suspect is believed to be armed.” In case after case that the ACLU examined, when a SWAT team was deployed to search a person’s home for drugs, officers determined that a person was “likely to be armed” on the basis of suspected but unfounded gang affiliations, past weapons convictions, or some other factor that did not truly indicate a basis for believing that the person in question was likely to be armed at the moment of the SWAT deployment. Of course, a reasonable belief that weapons are present should not by itself justify a SWAT deployment. Given that almost half of American households have guns, use of a SWAT team could almost always be justified if this were the sole factor.
These points are expanded upon further starting at page 33 of the ACLU report
Quote:Lack of Standards
Most police departments have in place standards that allow for SWAT deployment in cases involving hostage, barricade, active shooter, or other emergency scenarios, or in “high-risk” warrant scenarios. But what constitutes a “high-risk” scenario depends largely on the subjective beliefs of the officers involved. This lack of clear and legitimate standards for deploying SWAT may result in the excessive and unnecessary use of SWAT deployments in drug cases.
One reason for thinking that serving a warrant may be “high risk” would be the presence of a person who is armed and dangerous. More often than not, we found that SWAT records contained no information to explain why the officers believed a particular scenario was “high risk.” Even in incidents in which the police believe an armed person would be present, very often there was insufficient information to know what formed the officer’s belief; often, the SWAT team was called out based on an officer’s subjective belief that a person involved was “known to carry weapons” or “had been found to carry weapons in the past.” SWAT officers seemed to make no effort whatsoever to distinguish between weapons that were lawfully owned versus those that a suspect was thought to possess illegally.
In nearly every deployment involving a barricade, hostage, or active shooter, the SWAT report provided specific facts that gave the SWAT team reason to believe there was an armed and often dangerous suspect. For example, the Concord, North Carolina, SWAT team was called out to a barricade situation involving a man who had barricaded himself in his home, was making explosives, and was considered mentally unstable. All of this information was provided to police by a member of the man’s family. The man had previously been arrested for making bombs and was known by family members to possess a large number
of firearms. The team safely took the man into custody and seized at least four firearms, large amounts of ammunition, several axes and hatches, and bomb-making materials that had to be detonated by the bomb squad.
In contrast, incident reports for search warrant executions,especially in drug investigations, often contained no information about why the SWAT team was being sent in, other than to note that the warrant was “high risk,” or else provided otherwise unsubstantiated information such as
“suspect is believed to be armed.” In case after case that the ACLU examined, when a SWAT team was deployed to search a person’s home for drugs, officers determined that a person was “likely to be armed” on the basis of suspected but unfounded gang affiliations, past weapons convictions, or some other factor that did not truly indicate a basis for believing that the person in question was likely to be
armed at the moment of the SWAT deployment. Of course, a reasonable belief that weapons are present should not by itself justify a SWAT deployment. Given that almost
half of American households have guns, use of a SWAT team could almost always be justified if this were the sole factor. However, because the use of SWAT increases the
likelihood that the occupants will use weapons to defend
themselves, which increases the risk of violence and thus of
harm to both law enforcement and civilians, presence of a
weapon alone should not automatically result in a SWAT deployment.
Some agencies have checklists or matrices that they employ to determine whether a situation is “high risk.” In using these lists, officers check off various risk factors that they believe to be present and,presumably on the basis of the risk factors present, calculate a risk score. SWAT deployment is considered (and sometimes mandated) on the basis of whether the risk level meets a predetermined
threshold. Unfortunately, though, having such mechanisms in place does not obviate the problem of unnecessarily aggressive SWAT deployments because using an internal
checklist or matrix does not eliminate subjectivity. In one case, the officer completing the threat matrix, and perhaps knowing that the woman who was the subject of the warrant had no serious criminal history, included the histories of other people (not even confined to other people at the residence) in calculating the threat score. This elevated the score to the level needed to justify a SWAT
deployment. In addition, whether a person is likely to be armed is often considered a risk factor, but as discussed above, making that determination is highly subjective.
Some of the threat matrices examined in connection with this investigation contained factors and counting
procedures that were themselves problematic. For example, the Concord, North Carolina, threat matrix considers “religious extremist” to be a risk factor. In addition to possibly violating the First Amendment, predicting risk on the basis of religious ideology is ineffective for two
reasons: (1) there is no simple link between the adoption of an ideology and violent action; and (2) it is exceedingly difficult to craft a coherent model of the kinds of ideologies or beliefs that could be expected to lead to violence.
Other jurisdictions that use a matrix often consider the fact that the deployment is part of a drug investigation
as having a high point value, but simply having drugs in one’s home should not be considered a high-risk factor justifying a paramilitary search. Without consistency, clarity, meaningful metrics, and the use of appropriate risk factors, these matrices seem to cause more problems than they resolve.
In addition, the ACLU did not uncover any policies or practices encouraging partial responses. It appeared that deployments almost always involved a complete deployment, including numerous officers armed with assault rifles, battering rams, and distraction devices. Many deployments—to the extent they were justified at
all—would seem to have warranted a much less aggressive response, including perhaps fewer officers and less military weaponry.
Accuracy of Assessing Threats
One way to evaluate the reliability of a SWAT officer’s unsubstantiated beliefs concerning the threat danger and likely presence of weapons is to measure the likelihood that an officer’s subjective belief in the presence of weapons resulted in the SWAT team actually finding weapons at the scene. We found in the course of our investigation that the SWAT team found weapons (the overwhelming majority of which were firearms such as handguns, but rarely assault rifles) in just over one-third of the incidents in which they predicted finding them, which suggests the police are not particularly good at accurately forecasting the presence of weapons. Furthermore, if SWAT were being used for the limited purposes for which it was created, we would expect
them to find weapons in nearly all of the incidents studied.
No-knock warrants were used (or probably used) in about 60 percent of the incidents in which SWAT teams were searching for drugs, even though many resulted in the SWAT team finding no drugs or small quantities of drugs. For example, the Burlington County, North Carolina,SWAT team was deployed to search for drugs in a person’s home. Upon executing the warrant, all that was foundwas drug paraphernalia (such as a pipe) and a residue amount of cocaine (presumably the residue found in the
pipe). Given that the ostensible purpose of forcing entry into a home is to prevent the destruction of “evidence” (i.e., the presumed purpose of the no-knock being issued in this case), this result is troubling. One would expect to see a much higher rate of SWAT deployments resulting in the seizure of large amounts of drugs. Of course, as with the presence of weapons, the mere fact that there might be drug evidence that residents could, in theory, attempt to destroy upon the police knocking and announcing themselves, should not justify the use of militaristic SWAT teams forcing themselves into homes as if they are sweeping enemy territory in a war zone.
Of the cases we studied, in 36 percent of SWAT deployments for drug searches, and possibly in as many as 65 percent of such deployments, no contraband of any sort was found. When also considering that the mere
presence of contraband should not be enough, by itself, to justify SWAT, this seems to suggest strongly that SWAT is overused.
I highly recommend that everyone read the stuff under the spoiler, as it shines some light on some big problems related to SWAT deployments.
Quote:Police don't collectively have "a mentality of escalating situations and using excessive force," they have training and a use of force spectrum. Most of the actions you'll see by an officer during a heated situation will be due to lots of training.
According to databases run by the Washington Post
991 people were shot dead by police in 2015 and
738 people so far in 2016. Now I'm sure many of these shootings are justified, but I also doubt that all these people really had to die. Especially the combined 136 unarmed people shot by police. It does seem from various events that police officers escalate situations which sometimes have harmful results. Some examples:
Alton Sterling shooting
Police had Alton Sterling pressed against the ground when one officer takes out his gun and points it at Sterling's chest. The officer then fired two shots at point blank. The camera turns away and another two shots can be heard. The camera then turns back to Sterling where he is shown bleeding and twitching. In the seconds immediately after the shooting, the video shows that the officers did not attempt to administer first aid.
Terence Crutcher shooting
Police responded to a stranded vehicle call. The video shows police officers pointing their guns at Crutcher with his hands up. At one point an officer tased Crutcher while another shot him dead. No weapons were found on him or in his vehicle. An interesting thing about this video is that one of the officers in the helicopter can be heard saying "looks like a bad dude, he's probably on something" despite being up in the air and having virtually no knowledge of the situation on the ground.
Shooting of a behavioral therapist
Police responded to reports of a man with a gun threatening suicide. At the scene there were two men. The reported man with gun was actually an autistic man with a toy truck. The second man was a behavioral counselor from the group home to which the autistic man belonged. The counselor was next to the autistic man with his hands in the air as he was laying on the ground. The counselor was yelling to police that he was a counselor, the man was autistic, that they were unarmed, and there was no cause for alarm. Police still shot at the counselor while he was on the ground with his hands in the air. After he was shot and was being handcuffed, the counselor asked the officer why he shot him, to which he replied "I don't know".
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
The deputy came up to this man's vehicle because he was sitting in his car doing work as a private investigator. The man had his hands in plain view of the deputy the whole time, yet when he went to pull his earpiece out, the deputy escalated the situation and pointed his weapon at the man's head. It should be noted that not only was the deputy pointing his gun at the man's head, but he pulled the hammer back and had his finger on the trigger. In the video the man notices that the deputy is shaking and the deputy himself states that he's nervous. The deputy could have easily killed the man by accidentally discharging his weapon.
Dejuan Yourse
Police received a call about a suspected break in. They talk to the man who was sitting on the porch who states that the house belongs to his mother. He was being completely respectful and cooperative to the officers. At one point one of the officers escalates the situation by unnecessarily pushing him. The man calls his friend to corroborate his story, but has his phone seized by the officer who starts attempting to subdue him by beating him, including hitting him in the eye and mouth.
Terminal cop and homeless man
Although short, this video shows a transit officer unnecessarily pushing a homeless man to the ground. Even after he is on the ground and clearly is not posing a threat, the officer proceeds to slap him.
goigle Wrote:The reason they send so many people is because police aren't omniscient, they do not know the complete history of the people they are raiding. They could have guns, explosives, or all sorts of other things that can harm unprepared officers. Unless you support increasing the amount of government surveillance by agencies at all levels, I don't see an easy way around this.
Under that logic, literally every police encounter warrants a SWAT response. If police do not know something about a suspect, the solution is not to raid them with overwhelming force. Maybe they should do some actual police work, like an investigation. There is no excuse for raiding an 81-year-old lady with a SWAT team and
actual soldiers.
goigle Wrote:Finally, the fired West Virginia cop. You can't take a small town incident (the population of that town is 19,500 people) and say its indicative of a larger problem. Do I think that cop should have been fired? No. However, for all we know, maybe someone high up in the department just didn't like him and was looking for an excuse to fire him.
Don't forget that the two officers who later arrived killed the suspect immediately. Why did they have to do that? The first officer was clearly in control and de-escalating the situation. The man's death was grossly unnecessary.
![[+]](/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Spoiler![[Image: 4T9mkrN.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/4T9mkrN.jpg)
![[Image: elPjfDJ.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/elPjfDJ.jpg)
![[Image: 56nLP2C.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/56nLP2C.jpg)