7 ms·

Door-Busting Drug Raids Leave a Trail of Blood

79 points by gerbilly 10y ago

jMyles 10y ago
> Innocents have died in attacks on wrong addresses, including a 7-year-old girl in Detroit, and collaterally as the police pursued other residents, among them a 68-year-old grandfather in Framingham, Mass. Stray bullets have whizzed through neighboring homes, and in dozens of instances the victims of police gunfire have included the family dog. I think about this almost daily. Sometimes I seriously have trouble falling asleep because I'm afraid that the next wrong door will be mine. Am I the only one?
- Nadya 10y ago
  >I think about this almost daily. Sometimes I seriously have trouble falling asleep because I'm afraid that the next wrong door will be mine. >Am I the only one? No, but it isn't a very rational fear. Do you have trouble sleeping because you're scared of driving your car? How about choking on your food when you eat? When was the last time you tested your Carbon Monoxide detector? Ever plug anything into an electric outlet? How long each day are you staying seated? There are a hundred mundane things you likely do daily - each of them coming with a risk of death. Most people don't factor the risks of the more mundane things they do and they actively overestimate the risks of other, less mundane events.
  - emn13 10y ago
    That depends on your definition of rational. Clearly, it's not the greatest risk, not even remotely close to that. But there are a lot of interesting cognitive biases at play here, and some of those exist for a reason. For instance: it doesn't actually matter which risk is greatest; it's rational to fear that which is most avoidable. After all, that's where your attention is best spent. And similarly, we're social creatures and benefit from that hugely: and it's rational to spend attention not just on risks that you personally can avoid, but on those you can avoid with your community. And it's rational to spend extra attention to avoid in particular those risks which are exploitable by competitors: i.e. violence. After all, those risks (unlike "natural" risks) have a tendency to snowball. And then of course you have the fact that this kind of extreme violence poses risks to the community at large by undermining the trust a community needs to exist in the first place. Humanity may well be one of the most peaceful of comparable species (in terms of probability of serious injury by others of the same species), but part of that may plausibly be precisely because we're particularly sensitive to violent abuse. Is that irrational if it grants such huge benefits? If it is, is any empathy rational? In any case; I don't think the analysis can be quite as simple as risks ranked by probability of dying. At minimum, pointing out irrationality doesn't necessarily help much to alleviate the fear.
    - Nadya 10y ago
      >At minimum, pointing out irrationality doesn't necessarily help much to alleviate the fear. The only way to get over an emotional fear is to recognize that the emotional fear is at odds with reality. This is ignoring psychological fears of which there may be nothing you can do. For psychological fears I am referring to very specific phobias that may or may not be the result of a traumatic experience. People scared of clowns usually had a bad experience as a child. My uncle swapped my Barney VHS with Stephen King's IT. For a long time I was scared of clowns. But it just isn't rational for me to be scared of clowns and I eventually got over that phobia. Some people are terrified of the color yellow. There's no rhyme or reason - they just are. I'm sure there are various treatments ("exposure" seems to be a common one, similar to PTSD treatments) but some people will just have to live with their phobias playing a large and disruptive part of their lives. Being so terrified of police, terrorists, people throwing pennies off of buildings, etc. are simply things I cannot empathize with. If I was worried about every freak accident in life I'd never leave my house (but what if a meteorite struck my house? [0]) [0] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/02/130220-russia-meteorite-ann-hodges-science-space-hit/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/02/130220-russi...
      - jMyles 10y ago
        Putting police and terrorists in the same category of threat is as irrational as fearing terrorists. There are two million people in prison in the USA. Given the state of our justice system, it's hard to say that those who are selected for this treatment is very much less random than a lottery. It's a very reasonable concern.
      - emn13 10y ago
        You're missing the key point of my message. It's not rational to expect fear to be an unbiased estimator of risk. If you regard fear as a motivation, then it would be irrational to ignore factors other than risk. And that means that merely stating that things are not very risky is not a valid basis for concluding that it is irrational to fear them.
  - jMyles 10y ago
    I think that, in general, I do weigh threats to my life from the state (ie, threats to my liberty) more heavily, and I think that such a grading curve is necessary for freedom to prosper. ...and it's not just accidents. What they did to @aaronsw they can do to any of us. But interestingly, I do actually sometimes have trouble sleeping for the other reasons you mentioned. I live in a school bus, and driving it is, naturally, a source of anxiety. I also carry a multimeter and always check before we plug-in at campgrounds (this after finding some pretty bad wiring). But all in all, your point is super sound.
koenigdavidmj 10y ago
These need to be banned. No, I don't want to hear your pet exception. Loss of evidence isn't enough to justify the state murdering people.
- jMyles 10y ago
  > These need to be banned. It seems unlikely that the state will voluntarily cease this activity, as it achieves the quintessential goal of the state of instilling fear and creating the impression that the state lives in a legal and moral framework divorced from and above the common law. In libertarian circles, we often hear people advocate responding with violent self-defense. While this is perhaps more likely, if done with frequently and vigor, to result in meaningful change, it also continues to utilize a "might-makes-right" approach to political change, which I find even more abhorrent than the legislative process. So how do we achieve this ban peacefully?
  - Analemma_ 10y ago
    One way might be to make the money for these settlements come partially or entirely from police union treasuries. Right now cops don't give a shit if someone is awarded millions in a wrongful death suit because, hey, it's not like they're paying for it-- that cost is all on the taxpayer. If it actually hit them in the wallet they might be a little more careful.
    - biofox 10y ago
      Perhaps police should be licensed like professionals (doctors / lawyers) and be required to have malpractice insurance. Premiums could be based on their prior conduct. Gross misconduct would result in them losing their right to work in law enforcement. I imagine that would solve the problem.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Perhaps police should be licensed like professionals (doctors / lawyers) and be required to have malpractice insurance. Or just not covered by a near-blanket immunity from liability. If they were exposed to personal liability, you wouldn't need to expressly require liability insurance, they'd see the need quickly. And insurers would probably take care of the equivalence of licensing requirements by the factors that controlled insurance pricing.
mnm1 10y ago
No-knock raids kill police. They kill civilians. They kill animals and babies. They are the worst, most dangerous way to serve a warrant, according to police themselves. Yet these same police continue to use them because preventing someone flushing their weed down the toilet is more important than killing a baby in a crib. As long as our society accepts this justification, babies, people of all kinds, and animals will be killed and property destroyed. Police will get richer. Meanwhile, in WA, OR, CO, AK, etc. people go to the store and buy their weed peacefully without incident in a nice, safe, comfortable environment that is a tax boon to the states and better for all of society. So the difference is just exactly how you want to make that extra money, and who in society makes it. As a society we can choose to go with the status quo, empowering police departments across the country while they shoot and kill more and more innocent people to enrich themselves, or we can finally legalize something that people are going to do anyway and use that money to fund our schools and hospitals to better society. The sad part is that most people are so closed-minded on the subject, they only see the first option. Then they get mad when babies get killed when that's a direct result of a policy they supported and voted for.
- in_cahoots 10y ago
  I don't think this is about weed. It's about a structure that's set up with all the wrong incentives. Police departments get to seize assets related to drug offenses with no due process. Departments are being flooded with money to buy military resources, with the provision that they use them within the year. And once they have the resources there's a whole industry of ex-military businesses designed to train departments in SWAT-like techniques. When your local police department trains on equipment meant for executing urban warfare, is it any wonder that the wars come to our cities?
  - mnm1 10y ago
    Oh, without a doubt weed is just an excuse to feed the rubes. I should've been more clear. I agree with your thoughts on armaments buildup in police departments. It's no wonder at all.
    - 10y ago
cbanek 10y ago
This is why I want to move out into the desert, somewhere far out, where I can see anyone coming for miles. Sadly, cops do whatever they want in America, because Americans are brainwashed to think everyone is a criminal, or if the cops are involved, they were somehow asking for it.
- Synaesthesia 10y ago
  Rather than run away from the problem let's get together and fix it for everyone.
  - cbanek 10y ago
    While this is a nice sentiment, I'd be happy to hear any real productive advice you might have. I've been fighting this and the war on drugs for a while. As time goes on, sadly I feel like we're losing more ground than we're gaining.
    - Synaesthesia 10y ago
      Well basically anything which says "let's just give up" is just not helpful. There has been progress.
      - cbanek 10y ago
        I'm not saying move out of the US. I'm saying I'd like more warning when anyone sneaks up on me. Who's giving up?
pge 10y ago
Never forget that the police work for elected officials that you vote for and put in office. The best way to hold them accountable is at the voting booth (or better yet, run for office yourself).
- jpindar 10y ago
  If you have an example of a politician who is against this kind of thing, please tell us. Seriously, I'd like to see how they describe their position.

79 points by gerbilly 10y ago

> Innocents have died in attacks on wrong addresses, including a 7-year-old girl in Detroit, and collaterally as the police pursued other residents, among them a 68-year-old grandfather in Framingham, Mass. Stray bullets have whizzed through neighboring homes, and in dozens of instances the victims of police gunfire have included the family dog. I think about this almost daily. Sometimes I seriously have trouble falling asleep because I'm afraid that the next wrong door will be mine. Am I the only one?

Nadya 10y ago
>I think about this almost daily. Sometimes I seriously have trouble falling asleep because I'm afraid that the next wrong door will be mine. >Am I the only one? No, but it isn't a very rational fear. Do you have trouble sleeping because you're scared of driving your car? How about choking on your food when you eat? When was the last time you tested your Carbon Monoxide detector? Ever plug anything into an electric outlet? How long each day are you staying seated? There are a hundred mundane things you likely do daily - each of them coming with a risk of death. Most people don't factor the risks of the more mundane things they do and they actively overestimate the risks of other, less mundane events.
- emn13 10y ago
  That depends on your definition of rational. Clearly, it's not the greatest risk, not even remotely close to that. But there are a lot of interesting cognitive biases at play here, and some of those exist for a reason. For instance: it doesn't actually matter which risk is greatest; it's rational to fear that which is most avoidable. After all, that's where your attention is best spent. And similarly, we're social creatures and benefit from that hugely: and it's rational to spend attention not just on risks that you personally can avoid, but on those you can avoid with your community. And it's rational to spend extra attention to avoid in particular those risks which are exploitable by competitors: i.e. violence. After all, those risks (unlike "natural" risks) have a tendency to snowball. And then of course you have the fact that this kind of extreme violence poses risks to the community at large by undermining the trust a community needs to exist in the first place. Humanity may well be one of the most peaceful of comparable species (in terms of probability of serious injury by others of the same species), but part of that may plausibly be precisely because we're particularly sensitive to violent abuse. Is that irrational if it grants such huge benefits? If it is, is any empathy rational? In any case; I don't think the analysis can be quite as simple as risks ranked by probability of dying. At minimum, pointing out irrationality doesn't necessarily help much to alleviate the fear.
  - Nadya 10y ago
    >At minimum, pointing out irrationality doesn't necessarily help much to alleviate the fear. The only way to get over an emotional fear is to recognize that the emotional fear is at odds with reality. This is ignoring psychological fears of which there may be nothing you can do. For psychological fears I am referring to very specific phobias that may or may not be the result of a traumatic experience. People scared of clowns usually had a bad experience as a child. My uncle swapped my Barney VHS with Stephen King's IT. For a long time I was scared of clowns. But it just isn't rational for me to be scared of clowns and I eventually got over that phobia. Some people are terrified of the color yellow. There's no rhyme or reason - they just are. I'm sure there are various treatments ("exposure" seems to be a common one, similar to PTSD treatments) but some people will just have to live with their phobias playing a large and disruptive part of their lives. Being so terrified of police, terrorists, people throwing pennies off of buildings, etc. are simply things I cannot empathize with. If I was worried about every freak accident in life I'd never leave my house (but what if a meteorite struck my house? [0]) [0] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/02/130220-russia-meteorite-ann-hodges-science-space-hit/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/02/130220-russi...
    - jMyles 10y ago
      Putting police and terrorists in the same category of threat is as irrational as fearing terrorists. There are two million people in prison in the USA. Given the state of our justice system, it's hard to say that those who are selected for this treatment is very much less random than a lottery. It's a very reasonable concern.
    - emn13 10y ago
      You're missing the key point of my message. It's not rational to expect fear to be an unbiased estimator of risk. If you regard fear as a motivation, then it would be irrational to ignore factors other than risk. And that means that merely stating that things are not very risky is not a valid basis for concluding that it is irrational to fear them.
- jMyles 10y ago
  I think that, in general, I do weigh threats to my life from the state (ie, threats to my liberty) more heavily, and I think that such a grading curve is necessary for freedom to prosper. ...and it's not just accidents. What they did to @aaronsw they can do to any of us. But interestingly, I do actually sometimes have trouble sleeping for the other reasons you mentioned. I live in a school bus, and driving it is, naturally, a source of anxiety. I also carry a multimeter and always check before we plug-in at campgrounds (this after finding some pretty bad wiring). But all in all, your point is super sound.

koenigdavidmj 10y ago

These need to be banned. No, I don't want to hear your pet exception. Loss of evidence isn't enough to justify the state murdering people.

jMyles 10y ago
> These need to be banned. It seems unlikely that the state will voluntarily cease this activity, as it achieves the quintessential goal of the state of instilling fear and creating the impression that the state lives in a legal and moral framework divorced from and above the common law. In libertarian circles, we often hear people advocate responding with violent self-defense. While this is perhaps more likely, if done with frequently and vigor, to result in meaningful change, it also continues to utilize a "might-makes-right" approach to political change, which I find even more abhorrent than the legislative process. So how do we achieve this ban peacefully?
- Analemma_ 10y ago
  One way might be to make the money for these settlements come partially or entirely from police union treasuries. Right now cops don't give a shit if someone is awarded millions in a wrongful death suit because, hey, it's not like they're paying for it-- that cost is all on the taxpayer. If it actually hit them in the wallet they might be a little more careful.
  - biofox 10y ago
    Perhaps police should be licensed like professionals (doctors / lawyers) and be required to have malpractice insurance. Premiums could be based on their prior conduct. Gross misconduct would result in them losing their right to work in law enforcement. I imagine that would solve the problem.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Perhaps police should be licensed like professionals (doctors / lawyers) and be required to have malpractice insurance. Or just not covered by a near-blanket immunity from liability. If they were exposed to personal liability, you wouldn't need to expressly require liability insurance, they'd see the need quickly. And insurers would probably take care of the equivalence of licensing requirements by the factors that controlled insurance pricing.

mnm1 10y ago

No-knock raids kill police. They kill civilians. They kill animals and babies. They are the worst, most dangerous way to serve a warrant, according to police themselves. Yet these same police continue to use them because preventing someone flushing their weed down the toilet is more important than killing a baby in a crib. As long as our society accepts this justification, babies, people of all kinds, and animals will be killed and property destroyed. Police will get richer. Meanwhile, in WA, OR, CO, AK, etc. people go to the store and buy their weed peacefully without incident in a nice, safe, comfortable environment that is a tax boon to the states and better for all of society. So the difference is just exactly how you want to make that extra money, and who in society makes it. As a society we can choose to go with the status quo, empowering police departments across the country while they shoot and kill more and more innocent people to enrich themselves, or we can finally legalize something that people are going to do anyway and use that money to fund our schools and hospitals to better society. The sad part is that most people are so closed-minded on the subject, they only see the first option. Then they get mad when babies get killed when that's a direct result of a policy they supported and voted for.

in_cahoots 10y ago
I don't think this is about weed. It's about a structure that's set up with all the wrong incentives. Police departments get to seize assets related to drug offenses with no due process. Departments are being flooded with money to buy military resources, with the provision that they use them within the year. And once they have the resources there's a whole industry of ex-military businesses designed to train departments in SWAT-like techniques. When your local police department trains on equipment meant for executing urban warfare, is it any wonder that the wars come to our cities?
- mnm1 10y ago
  Oh, without a doubt weed is just an excuse to feed the rubes. I should've been more clear. I agree with your thoughts on armaments buildup in police departments. It's no wonder at all.
  - 10y ago

cbanek 10y ago

This is why I want to move out into the desert, somewhere far out, where I can see anyone coming for miles. Sadly, cops do whatever they want in America, because Americans are brainwashed to think everyone is a criminal, or if the cops are involved, they were somehow asking for it.

Synaesthesia 10y ago
Rather than run away from the problem let's get together and fix it for everyone.
- cbanek 10y ago
  While this is a nice sentiment, I'd be happy to hear any real productive advice you might have. I've been fighting this and the war on drugs for a while. As time goes on, sadly I feel like we're losing more ground than we're gaining.
  - Synaesthesia 10y ago
    Well basically anything which says "let's just give up" is just not helpful. There has been progress.
    - cbanek 10y ago
      I'm not saying move out of the US. I'm saying I'd like more warning when anyone sneaks up on me. Who's giving up?

pge 10y ago

Never forget that the police work for elected officials that you vote for and put in office. The best way to hold them accountable is at the voting booth (or better yet, run for office yourself).

jpindar 10y ago
If you have an example of a politician who is against this kind of thing, please tell us. Seriously, I'd like to see how they describe their position.