10 ms·

Paramilitary police: Cops or soldiers?

149 points by dmmalam 13y ago

koenigdavidmj 13y ago
http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/04/a-real-live-third-amendment-case/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/04/a-real-live-third-amendment... Summary of the case: cops wanted to use a neighbor's house to surveil their suspects. The neighbor who owned the house reacted about as would be expected.
- FD3SA 13y ago
  In the spirit of police brutality: http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=69016&sitesection=dash&VID=24990535 http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=69016...
adamnemecek 13y ago
> One had a criminal history that included three assault charges, albeit more than a decade old, and on his arrest was found to have a knife ... Is that illegal?
- noir_lord 13y ago
  If they want it to be most things are.
- gambiting 13y ago
  That's how law works nowadays. Make most things illegal, but don't prosecute so no one worries about having so many laws. But then when you want to place someone behind bars you can cherry pick any law you like. "Show me a man, and I will show you what he is guilty off" - old communist saying.
  - ghostDancer 13y ago
    Hi i think you refer to this : "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." and is attributed (disputed) to Cardinal Richelieu , not a communist precisely. By the way i completely agree with what you are saying , that's the tactic and is been used in a lot of places around the world.
- rbcgerard 13y ago
  It's hard for me to imagine any circumstances under which someone would be precluded from carrying a knife in their own home.
- hga 13y ago
  It's being used by a police chief to disparage those subject to one of these raids. No indication it was illegal per se. A quick check of a reference indicates that as usual, it wouldn't be difficult for it to be illegal to carry outside your home. There also may be felon in possession laws with knives like there are with guns.
bostik 13y ago
And here's the meat, since the article does come from Economist: > Because of a legal quirk, SWAT raids can be profitable. Rules on civil asset-forfeiture allow the police to seize anything which they can plausibly claim was the proceeds of a crime. Crucially, the property-owner need not be convicted of that crime. If the police find drugs in his house, they can take his cash and possibly the house, too. He must sue to get them back. > Many police departments now depend on forfeiture for a fat chunk of their budgets. In 1986, its first year of operation, the federal Asset Forfeiture Fund held $93.7m. By 2012, that and the related Seized Asset Deposit Fund held nearly $6 billion. Proliferation of SWAT team setups may have been due to a perception issue, but they sure as hell are kept going because there is a real financial incentive. For that reason the answer to the article's title should probably be something like: "Neither. Try mercenaries."
- mercurial 13y ago
  > Because of a legal quirk, SWAT raids can be profitable. Rules on civil asset-forfeiture allow the police to seize anything which they can plausibly claim was the proceeds of a crime. Isn't this true in general, and not only when SWAT is deployed to arrest the suspect? > Crucially, the property-owner need not be convicted of that crime. I would have thought this to be contrary to the US constitution, since it clearly breaks the presumption of innocence, but it turns out that it doesn't feature in the US constitution explicitly, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
  - Crito 13y ago
    You are afforded rights such as a presumption of innocence. Your property however, not being a person, has no rights. That's why they sue your property, not you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#United_States
    - mercurial 13y ago
      That's legal sophistry.
mercurial 13y ago
These programmes provide useful defensive equipment, such as body armour and helmets. But it is hard to see why Fargo, North Dakota—a city that averages fewer than two murders a year—needs an armoured personnel-carrier with a rotating turret. Keene, a small town in New Hampshire which had three homicides between 1999 and 2012, spent nearly $286,000 on an armoured personnel-carrier known as a BearCat. The local police chief said it would be used to patrol Keene’s “Pumpkin Festival and other dangerous situations”. A Reason-Rupe poll found that 58% of Americans think the use of drones, military weapons and armoured vehicles by the police has gone “too far”. Oddly enough, I was under the impression that a large part of the American population protested loudly whenever their tax dollars are spent for "useless" reasons. Do the complaints only apply when it's the Federal government doing it?
- Sharlin 13y ago
  Sadly, I guess there's a large subset of people who think investing in more "security" is never useless.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  That was the federal government doing it: http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120326/NEWS07/703269971 http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120326/NEWS07/703269971 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/20/local-cops-ready-for-war-with-homeland-security-funded-military-weapons.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/20/local-cops-... (Each article discusses a grant from the Department of Homeland Security being used to purchase a vehicle) Which is probably part of the problem, an average citizen can't do much more than whine to their Congressperson about this sort of spending.
  - mercurial 13y ago
    It's more complicated than that. First off, local councils take the decision to buy these toys with Federal money, so there is irresponsibility on both sides, but they also do it on their own: Nashua police purchased a BearCat with drug forfeiture money in 2003. (from your second link)
- 13y ago
D9u 13y ago
Drug warriors = soldiers.
renang 13y ago
> On hearing intruders break in, the homeowner’s son, a disabled ex-serviceman, reached for his (legal) gun. Luckily, he heard the police announce themselves and holstered it; There is a new tactic for intruders to use: announce themselves as police officers. Really. That's not a way to raid a house due to "allegedly" buying things with a stolen credit card.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  That wouldn't be a new tactic.
Sharlin 13y ago
Incidentally, I've always been a bit baffled by the Gendarmerie units in many Central and Southern European countries. They're typically a military police force tasked with policing civilians, and the concept really rubs me the wrong way from a Northern European perspective.
qwerta 13y ago
Paramilitary police is called "gendarmery" and they are used against organized crime or at outbreak of civil war. US did good job at Philippines with those units. Current SWAT teams are just bunch of happy triggers and robbers.
cabalamat 13y ago
They are cops pretending to be soldiers; if they had to fight a real army, I bet they would all shit themselves, and die shortly thereafter.
- hga 13y ago
  The stark raving mad behavior of LA area police in reaction to Chris Dorner removes pretty much all plausible doubt from your supposition.
- bluedino 13y ago
  Many cops are ex-military.
kaffeinecoma 13y ago
> One had a criminal history that included three assault charges I really dislike when "charges" are used this way to defame character. Were the charges dismissed? Was the person found innocent during a trial?
- koenigdavidmj 13y ago
  Not found innocent. All the jury said is that the state did not prove its claims to their liking.
  - EricBurnett 13y ago
    Do juries ever "find innocent" then? My understanding is that innocence is presumed until guilt proven, in which case a jury simply not finding them guilty is sufficient to say they're (legally) innocent.
  - bitwize 13y ago
    That's why the opposite of "guilty" at trial is "not guilty". Someone who is not guilty is not necessarily innocent, even of the charged crime, but there's not enough evidence there to find guilt.
    - grkvlt 13y ago
      Interestingly, in Scotland (but not the rest of the UK) there's still the third choice of 'Not proven' which indicates that there is not enough evidence (or a problem with the evidence) to prove guilt, whereas acquittal is seen to be a finding of innocence.
vezzy-fnord 13y ago
Relevant map of botched paramilitary police raids: http://www.cato.org/raidmap http://www.cato.org/raidmap

149 points by dmmalam 13y ago

http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/04/a-real-live-third-amendment-case/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/04/a-real-live-third-amendment... Summary of the case: cops wanted to use a neighbor's house to surveil their suspects. The neighbor who owned the house reacted about as would be expected.

FD3SA 13y ago
In the spirit of police brutality: http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=69016&sitesection=dash&VID=24990535 http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=69016...

adamnemecek 13y ago

> One had a criminal history that included three assault charges, albeit more than a decade old, and on his arrest was found to have a knife ... Is that illegal?

noir_lord 13y ago
If they want it to be most things are.
gambiting 13y ago
That's how law works nowadays. Make most things illegal, but don't prosecute so no one worries about having so many laws. But then when you want to place someone behind bars you can cherry pick any law you like. "Show me a man, and I will show you what he is guilty off" - old communist saying.
- ghostDancer 13y ago
  Hi i think you refer to this : "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." and is attributed (disputed) to Cardinal Richelieu , not a communist precisely. By the way i completely agree with what you are saying , that's the tactic and is been used in a lot of places around the world.
rbcgerard 13y ago
It's hard for me to imagine any circumstances under which someone would be precluded from carrying a knife in their own home.
hga 13y ago
It's being used by a police chief to disparage those subject to one of these raids. No indication it was illegal per se. A quick check of a reference indicates that as usual, it wouldn't be difficult for it to be illegal to carry outside your home. There also may be felon in possession laws with knives like there are with guns.

bostik 13y ago

And here's the meat, since the article does come from Economist: > Because of a legal quirk, SWAT raids can be profitable. Rules on civil asset-forfeiture allow the police to seize anything which they can plausibly claim was the proceeds of a crime. Crucially, the property-owner need not be convicted of that crime. If the police find drugs in his house, they can take his cash and possibly the house, too. He must sue to get them back. > Many police departments now depend on forfeiture for a fat chunk of their budgets. In 1986, its first year of operation, the federal Asset Forfeiture Fund held $93.7m. By 2012, that and the related Seized Asset Deposit Fund held nearly $6 billion. Proliferation of SWAT team setups may have been due to a perception issue, but they sure as hell are kept going because there is a real financial incentive. For that reason the answer to the article's title should probably be something like: "Neither. Try mercenaries."

mercurial 13y ago
> Because of a legal quirk, SWAT raids can be profitable. Rules on civil asset-forfeiture allow the police to seize anything which they can plausibly claim was the proceeds of a crime. Isn't this true in general, and not only when SWAT is deployed to arrest the suspect? > Crucially, the property-owner need not be convicted of that crime. I would have thought this to be contrary to the US constitution, since it clearly breaks the presumption of innocence, but it turns out that it doesn't feature in the US constitution explicitly, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
- Crito 13y ago
  You are afforded rights such as a presumption of innocence. Your property however, not being a person, has no rights. That's why they sue your property, not you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#United_States
  - mercurial 13y ago
    That's legal sophistry.

mercurial 13y ago

These programmes provide useful defensive equipment, such as body armour and helmets. But it is hard to see why Fargo, North Dakota—a city that averages fewer than two murders a year—needs an armoured personnel-carrier with a rotating turret. Keene, a small town in New Hampshire which had three homicides between 1999 and 2012, spent nearly $286,000 on an armoured personnel-carrier known as a BearCat. The local police chief said it would be used to patrol Keene’s “Pumpkin Festival and other dangerous situations”. A Reason-Rupe poll found that 58% of Americans think the use of drones, military weapons and armoured vehicles by the police has gone “too far”. Oddly enough, I was under the impression that a large part of the American population protested loudly whenever their tax dollars are spent for "useless" reasons. Do the complaints only apply when it's the Federal government doing it?

Sharlin 13y ago
Sadly, I guess there's a large subset of people who think investing in more "security" is never useless.
maxerickson 13y ago
That was the federal government doing it: http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120326/NEWS07/703269971 http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120326/NEWS07/703269971 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/20/local-cops-ready-for-war-with-homeland-security-funded-military-weapons.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/20/local-cops-... (Each article discusses a grant from the Department of Homeland Security being used to purchase a vehicle) Which is probably part of the problem, an average citizen can't do much more than whine to their Congressperson about this sort of spending.
- mercurial 13y ago
  It's more complicated than that. First off, local councils take the decision to buy these toys with Federal money, so there is irresponsibility on both sides, but they also do it on their own: Nashua police purchased a BearCat with drug forfeiture money in 2003. (from your second link)
13y ago

D9u 13y ago

Drug warriors = soldiers.

renang 13y ago

> On hearing intruders break in, the homeowner’s son, a disabled ex-serviceman, reached for his (legal) gun. Luckily, he heard the police announce themselves and holstered it; There is a new tactic for intruders to use: announce themselves as police officers. Really. That's not a way to raid a house due to "allegedly" buying things with a stolen credit card.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
That wouldn't be a new tactic.

Sharlin 13y ago

Incidentally, I've always been a bit baffled by the Gendarmerie units in many Central and Southern European countries. They're typically a military police force tasked with policing civilians, and the concept really rubs me the wrong way from a Northern European perspective.

qwerta 13y ago

Paramilitary police is called "gendarmery" and they are used against organized crime or at outbreak of civil war. US did good job at Philippines with those units. Current SWAT teams are just bunch of happy triggers and robbers.

cabalamat 13y ago

They are cops pretending to be soldiers; if they had to fight a real army, I bet they would all shit themselves, and die shortly thereafter.

hga 13y ago
The stark raving mad behavior of LA area police in reaction to Chris Dorner removes pretty much all plausible doubt from your supposition.
bluedino 13y ago
Many cops are ex-military.

kaffeinecoma 13y ago

> One had a criminal history that included three assault charges I really dislike when "charges" are used this way to defame character. Were the charges dismissed? Was the person found innocent during a trial?

koenigdavidmj 13y ago
Not found innocent. All the jury said is that the state did not prove its claims to their liking.
- EricBurnett 13y ago
  Do juries ever "find innocent" then? My understanding is that innocence is presumed until guilt proven, in which case a jury simply not finding them guilty is sufficient to say they're (legally) innocent.
- bitwize 13y ago
  That's why the opposite of "guilty" at trial is "not guilty". Someone who is not guilty is not necessarily innocent, even of the charged crime, but there's not enough evidence there to find guilt.
  - grkvlt 13y ago
    Interestingly, in Scotland (but not the rest of the UK) there's still the third choice of 'Not proven' which indicates that there is not enough evidence (or a problem with the evidence) to prove guilt, whereas acquittal is seen to be a finding of innocence.

vezzy-fnord 13y ago

Relevant map of botched paramilitary police raids: http://www.cato.org/raidmap http://www.cato.org/raidmap