Article: Rise of the Warrior Cop

[blksheep 466]

One who trolls on the internet has no life. ~ Sofratates

[pjd832 146]

Ouch...me?

[blksheep 466]

Ouch...me?

Not even close.

[pjd832 146]

Lol ok thanks just checking

[blksheep 466]

Lol ok thanks just checking

No problem brother.

[Kaiser7 33]

All of this is worrying, but what is even more worrying is the increase in legislation pertaining to police activity, in conjunction with this. For example, NY making it a felony to "annoy a police officer". Also, legislation that's aimed at preventing people from filming the police is worrying.

Many police are the first to say, "If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide." But increasingly there are circumstances where police react negatively to being recorded. It goes back to "Who watches the Watchmen?" After all, they are not supposed to be servents of authority, but rather servents of the people. The actions of the police are meant to catch harmful criminals, and deter crime while following the constitution. We should not only be allowed, but encouraged to witness, and even record police activity when possible, to ensure that they are beholden to the constitution, and treating citizens (even suspects) with respect.--remember, we are innocent until proven guilty.

[RUTGERS95 890]

Amen kaiser

[johnott 5]

Though this topic has covered 5 pages so far, I have read nothing that has allayed my initial concerns nor has anything or anyone made a clear enough argument to dispel the contents of the article posted. The article cites certain events and provides data in a factual manner. If you dispute any portion of the article in question, please rebut by citing something factual in return, cite a reference. Opinions don't seem to be getting us anywhere.

[njpilot 671]

Yep, Huckabee with John W. Whitehead.

Maybe someone here can record this tomorrow?  The segment isn't long, maybe ten minutes.

http://nomorecocktails.com/post/2013/07/27/Huckabee-interviews-author-of-Government-of-Wolves-about-the-rise-of-paramilitary-cops.aspx

 

 

[GRIZ 3,369]

Though this topic has covered 5 pages so far, I have read nothing that has allayed my initial concerns nor has anything or anyone made a clear enough argument to dispel the contents of the article posted. The article cites certain events and provides data in a factual manner. If you dispute any portion of the article in question, please rebut by citing something factual in return, cite a reference. Opinions don't seem to be getting us anywhere.

No one here has the entire story. No one knows the information the police were supplied with to get the warrant. All you can expect is opinions.

 

From the information given in your article the defendant killed someone who was legally there on a warrant that was upheld by another judge. The defendant commited suicide rather than pursue further appeals.

[bravozulu14 0]

The author speaks at CATO

 

http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/rise-warrior-cop-militarization-americas-police-forces

 

I've yet to watch it, but perhaps he gives his work more context. 

[johnott 5]

No one here has the entire story. No one knows the information the police were supplied with to get the warrant. All you can expect is opinions.

 

From the information given in your article the defendant killed someone who was legally there on a warrant that was upheld by another judge. The defendant commited suicide rather than pursue further appeals.

 

You are correct, we are not privy to all the details but the discussion is not about "all the details". For the sake of argument, take Mr. Stewart's story at face value. The article states that Mr. Stewart was a veteran and had PTSD (is that true? I don't know for sure, but it doesn't appear to be disputed.). It further states the he (Stewart) was guilty of growing marijuana in his basement. "Apart from the outcome", were the actions "initiated" by the police in this instance warranted. After all "if" it was only about illegal pot plants in the basement and he had no prior criminal record, it does seem over-the-top. I mean he was suspected of growing some pot, he was not the Boston bomber. As written, do the police bear any responsibility?

 

That being said, those three paragraphs pertaining to Matthew David Stewart are just a fraction of the entire article, a mere jumping off point.

 

Here are a few quotes from the the article:

 

"Over the next several years, stories emerged of federal agents breaking down the doors of private homes (often without a warrant) and terrorizing innocent citizens and families. Congress repealed the no-knock law in 1974, but the policy would soon make a comeback (without congressional authorization)."  -Is that true?

 

"National Guard helicopters and U-2 spy planes flew the California skies in search of marijuana plants." -Is that true?

 

"Advocates of these tactics said that drug dealers were acquiring ever bigger weapons and the police needed to stay a step ahead in the arms race. There were indeed a few high-profile incidents in which police were outgunned, but no data exist suggesting that it was a widespread problem. A study done in 1991 by the libertarian-leaning Independence Institute found that less than one-eighth of 1% of homicides in the U.S. were committed with a military-grade weapon." -Is that true?

 

"...the 2006 story about the Tibetan monks who had overstayed their visas while visiting America on a peace mission. In Iowa, the hapless holy men were apprehended by a SWAT team in full gear." -Is that true?

 

"...Katherine Johnston, a 92-year-old woman killed by an Atlanta narcotics team acting on a bad tip from an informant in 2006; Alberto Sepulveda, an 11-year-old accidentally shot by a California SWAT officer during a 2000 drug raid; and Eurie Stamps, killed in a 2011 raid on his home in Framingham, Mass., when an officer says his gun mistakenly discharged. Mr. Stamps wasn't a suspect in the investigation." -Is that true?

 

"Consider today's police recruitment videos (widely available on YouTube), which often feature cops rappelling from helicopters, shooting big guns, kicking down doors and tackling suspects. Such campaigns embody an American policing culture that has become too isolated, confrontational and militaristic, and they tend to attract recruits for the wrong reasons." -Is that true?

 

Point being, that there are a lot of other issues we can discuss besides the ambiguity of Mr. Stewarts guilt or innocence.

[GRIZ 3,369]

You are correct, we are not privy to all the details but the discussion is not about "all the details". For the sake of argument, take Mr. Stewart's story at face value. The article states that Mr. Stewart was a veteran and had PTSD (is that true? I don't know for sure, but it doesn't appear to be disputed.). It further states the he (Stewart) was guilty of growing marijuana in his basement. "Apart from the outcome", were the actions "initiated" by the police in this instance warranted. After all "if" it was only about illegal pot plants in the basement and he had no prior criminal record, it does seem over-the-top. I mean he was suspected of growing some pot, he was not the Boston bomber. As written, do the police bear any responsibility............................................................................................................................................................................................................................

 

Point being, that there are a lot of other issues we can discuss besides the ambiguity of Mr. Stewarts guilt or innocence.

 

Let's focus on Mr Stewart's guilt or innocence.  If you want to rely just on Mr Balko's article I've already posted my views on that.  How about we get some more information like....

 

http://fox13now.com/tag/matthew-david-stewart/

 

Just watch the first two videos.  I'll hit the highlights for those without the time.

 

The first video shows the following:

 

1.  The blood stained raid jackets with 6" high "POLICE" that Stewart claims he didn't see.

 

2.  The actual tape recorded unterview with Stewart where the detective asks him, "Do you know who they are?" to which Stewart responds, "You've got a lot of branches out there".  The detective asks him to clarify that and Stewart says "Branches of the government".  He didn't know if they were local police or DEA or whoever but he knew they were from the government

.

3.  According to the prosecutor the round count was 32 for Stewart vs 98 for the police.

 

4.  Several of the police officers were shot when they tried to pull wounded officers to safety.  This includes a uniformed officer.  Instead of Stewart saying "Hey the police are here to help me", he shot the uniformed officer. 

 

5.  The prosecutor says after receiving the information from the ex-girlfriend, the police visited Stewart's house.  There was no answer and they looked through the basement window and saw the marijuana plants.  Looks like they did their homework for the warrant. 

 

6.  Some of the police didn't have body armor as they considered this a low risk warrant.

 

7.  There were explosives found in his house.  His family said he was making flares.  Who do you want to believe?

 

8.  There was also a search warrant for child pornography for Stewart that the prosecutor wasn't pursuing as Stewart had the capital murder case against him.

 

9.  There was also evidence that Stewart was planning for a "suicide by cop".

 

You have to consider that this wasn't released by the police until a public records request was made by Fox News.  They couldn't release this info until the trial or in this case after Stewart was dead as the defense could claim it prejudiced the defendant.  The police could have just released this info and shut down a lot of the criticism but didn't.

 

Raid jackets, BDUs, body armor, and long guns do not make a SWAT team.  However some, like Mr Blako and others think so.  I've seen it myself while serving warrants.  Many of them were reported by the press as served by SWAT teams and it was agents in raid jackets and body armor.

 

The Stewart case is far from an example of "militarization of the police" .  Also note the release date on the Fox videos, June 12, 2013. That was a week before Mr Balko's article was published in the WSJ.  He had no interest in recanting any of his article as he most likely was already paid for it.

 

As far as Mr Blako's other claims, I'm sure many of them would be clarified with additonal info.     

[GRIZ 3,369]

BTW I don't think if Mr Stewart was a veteran with PTSD that gives him a pass. His family said he was medicating himself with the marijuana. Rather then self medicate himself I think his family should have convinced him to go to the VA.

[johnott 5]

As I have previously stated... "Apart from the outcome", were the actions "initiated" by the police in this instance warranted.

 

Would anyone have been shot or killed if the police hadn't chose to go after him in the way that they did? You are still focusing on  what Mr. Stewart did, as if nothing precipitated his actions. He didn't walk into a police station and start shooting cops, the police busted down his door with guns drawn. But Mr. Stewarts guilt or innocence is not the point of the article, it is primarily about how the confrontation got started. What was the catalyst that caused this confrontation to unfold and was that action warranted. Was that action due to the militarization of police tactics? Were their tactics too aggressive?

 

"6.  Some of the police didn't have body armor as they considered this a low risk warrant." -So, it takes this many police (and some with body armor) to serve a low risk warrant. <That's what I'm talking about. From the beginning, based upon the initial warrant it appears to be about the pot plants. Is this the way the police execute "low risk" warrants?

 

"The Stewart case is far from an example of "militarization of the police"... < What about the use of aggressive tactics in supposedly low risk incidents.

 

At this point it is all rather moot, since we will never know Mr. Stewart's side of the story. Did he have PTSD or was he just psychotic? Whether he was or wasn't does not excuse his actions but it would help explain them.

 

It seems evident to me that all LEO's here have dismissed the whole concept or premise of the article I posted. I know the article wasn't flattering towards members of law enforcement, but the article troubled me and got me thinking. For what ever reason, I don't think I will gain any further insight on this matter by discussing it on this forum. I have grown weary of trying to explain my position and I have no desire to argue or debate any further. I will refrain from posting similar topics as they seem to be non-productive areas of discussion.

[Bob B 103]

Andy Griffith + armed society + stand your ground = peace.

 

Large militarized police force + disarmed society + duty to retreat = chaos.

[RUTGERS95 890]

john,  you are swimming upstream without a paddle.  you are right of course and using rational views but you ought to just let it die.  There is good and bad in every profession, hell a couple of cops just a shot a guy taking the trash out in Florida and are saying he was waving a gun (flashlight) at them.  Cops everywhere are getting training that puts their frame of mind apart from their civic duty as members of the community to protect and serve.

 

thats how this leo family sees it

[usnmars 136]

First off I am going to say that I have several family members that are state troopers, and I am going to try to not be a cop basher.  I do find it disturbing tha the police forces have become militarized, and thus the growing distancing of the local community and police officers. 

Here are some T-shirts that were sold and worn by police, the first is one that was worn by the NYPD's Street Crimes Unit, the quote alone is disturbing.....

Then this one was printed and sold for a fundraiser in California

As a citizen i see this as a disturbing trend, and showing the decreasing mentality of serve and protect and migrating towards a controlling mentallity when it comes to the public.  Now I fully understand it comes down to budgeting and how fugged up the govt works.  Police forces get money budgeted yearly for SWAT and other special groups.  If the SWAT isn't used enough to justify the money in the budget, next year they dont get it or the money is decreased.  So, SWAT is utilized more often than needed so they can show that it was utilized and is a "nessecity for the community", and they get their money next year.   Just like in the military, go into "country" for a day or so to get your hazardous duty pay for the month, I dont blame them but I dont see the need.  I believe that local swat forces should be disbanded and it should be on a state level.  Anywhere in the state there is a State Police Barracks withing an accecptable response time.  Local PD's are stressing their budgets having these SWAT teams, the ammo cost for training alone has to be a huge economic burden.  And dont even get me started in cops calling the local populace "civilians"  that is a joke, friggin big joke.  If you want to call someone a civilian go join the military, then you will really know what it is like to put your life on the line, not be able to see your family for months at a time and not just miss Christmas.  And then I keep hearing from my family and friends that are LEO's that all this SWAT and "militarization" is being done for officer safety, my response is "I've got one of the most dangerous jobs in the world, you dont see me bitchin'?"

 

and on a final note, a good song that talks about this subject.

[jrfly3006 42]

Wow...I wonder why all of this anger at police is not directed at the real threat to the future of this country....Drug dealers, gang bangers, child predators, white collar criminals, terrorists and corrupt politicians...much easier to blame the cops I guess...There will come a point when the ability of the police has been neutered to the point of complete in-action on their part...then the complete collapse of our social structure, which is already underway. will be realized

[BlueLineFish 615]

Wow...I wonder why all of this anger at police is not directed at the real threat to the future of this country....Drug dealers, gang bangers, child predators, white collar criminals, terrorists and corrupt politicians...much easier to blame the cops I guess...There will come a point when the ability of the police has been neutered to the point of complete in-action on their part...then the complete collapse of our social structure, which is already underway. will be realized

its pretty much there already....what needs to be done cant be done. Aclu and the courts have handcuffed the law enforcement community and enabled the criminals.

[RUTGERS95 890]

its pretty much there already....what needs to be done cant be done. Aclu and the courts have handcuffed the law enforcement community and enabled the criminals.

amen to that

 

courts and liberal groups have turned the table on who gets the rights

[RUTGERS95 890]

agree usnmars 100%.  wearing that stuff is a travesty by leo imho

[ryan_j 0]

Wow...I wonder why all of this anger at police is not directed at the real threat to the future of this country....Drug dealers, gang bangers, child predators, white collar criminals, terrorists and corrupt politicians...much easier to blame the cops I guess...There will come a point when the ability of the police has been neutered to the point of complete in-action on their part...then the complete collapse of our social structure, which is already underway. will be realized

Because a gang banger isn't given authority to infringe on your rights. The police are, and you have little to no redress in many cases. Unless you live in Indiana.

[BlueLineFish 615]

Gangbangers do infringe on your rights. Their actions cause repercussion for law abiding citizens. Gun laws maybe to curb violence is just one example.

[jrfly3006 42]

Because a gang banger isn't given authority to infringe on your rights. The police are, and you have little to no redress in many cases. Unless you live in Indiana.

No they just kill people, sell drugs, cause the demise of whole urban and now suburban areas, suck the welfare system dry, don't pay taxes and overwhelm the criminal justice system...that's all they do...Good enough for ya?

[ryan_j 0]

No they just kill people, sell drugs, cause the demise of whole urban and now suburban areas, suck the welfare system dry, don't pay taxes and overwhelm the criminal justice system...that's all they do...Good enough for ya?

Well yes and you can deal with them with lawful justifiable use of force or even call the cops to have them arrested. You have redress against them.

[BlueLineFish 615]

Well yes and you can deal with them with lawful justifiable use of force or even call the cops to have them arrested. You have redress against them.

Yes..because the legal system does such a fine job keeping them away from the public. That's why I see criminal histories that read like short stories or novels far too often.

[Vlad G 345]

Gangbangers do infringe on your rights. Their actions cause repercussion for law abiding citizens. Gun laws maybe to curb violence is just one example.

 

So how is that war on drugs working? I mean we've spent a lot of money on it, given up a lot of rights when it comes to search and seizure, so we must be winning, right?

 

Gangs, as a whole, are a symptom of failed government policies. They are a alternative form of government. They have rules, laws, enforcers, judges, and so on. Like any form of government the people in power are profiting and the people at the bottom suffering. 

 

So if after the incredible amount of money we've poured into fighting drugs, gangs, organized crime and the shady laws we passed to do it (like RICO being used for lots of things not related to organized crime) if we still have a gang problem (and a growing one at that) I have a hard time accepting we should keep on throwing money into the same pit. 

 

If a novel idea about dealing with the problem comes up, I'm all ears, but right now I'm seeing places like South River where "the gangs where bad" which resulted in "additional enforcement" which is now basically pull over as many people as you can for doing 26 in a 25 and write tickets. 

[djg0770 481]

Gangs are today's version of the mob - what government function did the mob provide?  Alleged protection from their own enforcers perhaps?

 

The problem in my opinion is recidivism and I see that as the largest problem facing society today.  If repeat criminals were charged and sentenced on a sliding scale (more crime=more time), if we had judges that would support appropriate punishment for actions, and if prisons were really prisons (ie denied freedoms and liberties ala Sheriff Arpaio) then it is my belief that several things would occur:  Criminals would begin to understand that repeat crime will get them more time, the time will not be "fun", the police would then have a sense of actually making a difference when a shitbag goes do jail and doesn't get back on the street for a very long time, and the quantity of shitbaggery would decrease.

 

What am I talking about - that could never work. 

[vladtepes 1,060]

  Cops everywhere are getting training that puts their frame of mind apart from their civic duty as members of the community to protect and serve.

 

 

 

I do actually agree with that to some extent... I DO see the "every cop wants to be a special operator syndrome" I of course am generalizing.. as everyone knows I have defended police to no end and have tons of family and friends that are LEO... but what I see is that major urban areas DO need highly trained... highly militarized forces to deal with the crazy violence that these areas are filled with... but in the same breath when I am at small town USA and see a cop in black BDUs with a drop leg holster.. I snicker.. because its ridiculous... everyone always wants to do what everyone else is doing.. and what is right in Camden NJ is not really reasonable is Smithville NJ..... I am only 35 and I know that as a kid police came across as more part of the community... now they all look like they want to be "urban soldiers"

 

I have no problem with ALL police being properly trained.. I have nothing against departments having heavy firepower where needed... but I do see an issue with complete disconnect to the people..