Total Number Of SWAT Team Raids Exploded Between 1981 And 2005

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
The militarization of America’s police is well documented. Hundreds of articles, books, and studies have been published in recent years showing that local police departments are increasingly using tactics and equipment formally reserved for the military.

“Billions of dollars' worth of military weapons and equipment is available to local police departments through grant programs administered by federal agencies such as the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security,” the American Civil Liberties Union writes on their page discussing police militarization.

Between 1995-1997, the Pentagon distributed 3,800 M-16s, 2,185 M14s, 73 grenade launchers, and 112 armored personnel carriers to local police departments across the country.

Among the eye-opening changes in the tactics used by American police departments is the sharply increasing number of SWAT team raids being executed across the country. Let’s take a look at statistics for one form of a raid known as the “no knock warrant” raid.

A “no knock warrant” gives a law enforcement agency the right to raid a citizen’s house without knocking or identifying themselves first. The warrant is given under the assumption that the evidence hoping to be discovered in the raid could be destroyed by someone as police wait outside after knocking. While the warrant seems to serve a legitimate purpose, statistics show police departments are executing no knock raids at drastically increasing rates over the last 30 years.

In 1981, for example, there were 3,000 no knock warrants executed in America. In 2005, just 24 years later, this number skyrocketed to over 50,000 no knock raids.

In 2006, CATO Institute policy analyst Radley Balko published a paper entitled Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America. In the paper, Balko speaks out on the dangers posed to civilians when police begin executing frequent, military-style house raids.

The raids, he says, “are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they are sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers.

“These raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom were guilty only of misdemeanors. The raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong residence. And they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects.”

Balko has hard numbers to backup these claims.

Since 1995, SWAT teams have botched 292 raids. A botched raid could be a raid where an innocent person is injured or killed, for example, or a raid where police enter the wrong house. Forty innocent people and 20 nonviolent offenders have been killed in raids since 1995.

These raid statistics, like all numbers about ramped up police forces in America, are especially troubling given the time spans they are occurring over. At the same time that police departments are becoming increasingly militarized, America's violent crime rates are dropping, suggesting that the increased police aggression is not necessary.

The trend has led people like Van Jones, director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, to make statements like the following:

"If this were happening in any other country in the world, this incredible militarization of the police, the incredible expansion of police power, the increase in police weaponry, the decrease in defendants' rights, the incredible stockpiling of bodies behind prison walls, we'd be screaming."

Link to Article

I find it interesting we would in fact declare another country as being wrong and in violation of their citizens rights if this happened somewhere else, yet the majority in the US remain strangely silent on this issue.

What scares the hell out of me is when we least expect it we will find ourselves in a pickle when something even more egregious in violation of our constitutional rights happens and we wake realizing our country has been taken over by an army of police waiting to strike it's citizens down for any dissention what so ever, and only then do we realize we pissed away all of our rights with apathy.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
"If this were happening in any other country in the world, this incredible militarization of the police, the incredible expansion of police power, the increase in police weaponry, the decrease in defendants' rights, the incredible stockpiling of bodies behind prison walls, we'd be screaming."

Seriously? Does whoever said that maybe want a do-over on that statement?

*Any* other country in the world? Really?

No one is or ever will be screaming about that (and actually *much* worse) happening anywhere else in the world, and to pretend it isn't ... well, come on. That's just blazingly ignorant.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
"If this were happening in any other country in the world, this incredible militarization of the police, the incredible expansion of police power, the increase in police weaponry, the decrease in defendants' rights, the incredible stockpiling of bodies behind prison walls, we'd be screaming."

Seriously? Does whoever said that maybe want a do-over on that statement?

*Any* other country in the world? Really?

No one is or ever will be screaming about that (and actually *much* worse) happening anywhere else in the world, and to pretend it isn't ... well, come on. That's just blazingly ignorant.

Actually Americans do love to harp on that when it happens elsewhere.

UKRAINE!!!! WHARRGARBL!!!!!

Oh no, a few people were shot by police during protests, so now we need to play hardball with the evil empire, because freedom.

All the while, police are shooting people in the back and storming in the homes of innocent people in the dark of night with no warning. Because drugs.
 
Last edited:

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
the local police (which were supposed to be local militias) have been militarized/working for the u.s.g rather than for the people since the Federalist Party enacted the first draft to crush the non-violent whiskey rebels. A little more than 100 years later, TJR militarized the cops even more by creating the national guard which was a violation of the 2nd amendment. Then 90 years after the national guard was created, Bill clinton made it so that people really, really fucking cant be safe in their hometowns.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
To Protect and Serve... Themselves. The police now believe that the safety and security of the police is the paramount concern in any incident with members of the public.

And they really get off on playing soldier.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
Actually Americans do love to harp on that when it happens elsewhere.

UKRAINE!!!! WHARRGARBL!!!!!

Oh no, a few people were shot by police during protests, so now we need to play hardball with the evil empire, because freedom.

All the while, police are shooting people in the back and storming in the homes of innocent people in the dark of night with no warning. Because drugs.
Doesn't make that statement any less ridiculous.

Get back to me when we're pacifying slums. The average American doesn't even know what that is, let alone screams about it.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I agree it needs to stop, but how? Bill Clinton did it. Obama is doing it now. I'd bet both Bushes did it. Probably it's an exponential slope no matter who is in power. Vote in Democrats, they militarize the cops. Vote in Republicans, they militarize the cops. That leaves Libertarians and Greens. Greens are unabashed Marxists, and Marxists are all about concentrating and increasing government power. That leaves Libertarians, and while I typically vote Libertarian, I'm not at all sure they would be much better if in power as they seem to be much more concerned with corporate freedom than with individual freedom.
 

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,224
306
126
I agree it needs to stop, but how? Bill Clinton did it. Obama is doing it now. I'd bet both Bushes did it. Probably it's an exponential slope no matter who is in power. Vote in Democrats, they militarize the cops. Vote in Republicans, they militarize the cops. That leaves Libertarians and Greens. Greens are unabashed Marxists, and Marxists are all about concentrating and increasing government power. That leaves Libertarians, and while I typically vote Libertarian, I'm not at all sure they would be much better if in power as they seem to be much more concerned with corporate freedom than with individual freedom.

Well, it seems to me that we first need to ask 'why'.

WHY are the police getting bigger weapons, more body armor, and traveling in groups? I can think of the most obvious reason. If I was a cop, I'd sure want the best armor, the biggest gun, and the baddest-ass car to do my job. It's just this little thing I have about trying to give myself the best chance to make it home alive each day.

Is it really that hard to understand? I don't think it is. So while Oldgamer continues to post every police-negative article he can find to the forum, I'm wondering where his solution is to not militarize them. Is HE the one who's going to tell the wife of the cop who just died why he didn't have the best body armor? The best gun? The best car? Is HE the one who is going to go tell a policewoman's children that she won't be coming home because they sent 2 cops into a drug bust when they could have sent 50?

Part of living in a free society is the risk we all accept in allowing gun ownership and other things that I consider essential liberties. Part of living in that same free society is giving our law-enforcement officers the absolutely best methods of dealing with the violence that can sometimes arise from that freedom.

Let's dig deeper. Rather than throwing around the term 'militarization' (it's like talk about 'assault weapons') let's talk about what he actually means. What does he mean to take away or change to 'demilitarize' the police force?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,727
52,561
136
I agree it needs to stop, but how? Bill Clinton did it. Obama is doing it now. I'd bet both Bushes did it. Probably it's an exponential slope no matter who is in power. Vote in Democrats, they militarize the cops. Vote in Republicans, they militarize the cops. That leaves Libertarians and Greens. Greens are unabashed Marxists, and Marxists are all about concentrating and increasing government power. That leaves Libertarians, and while I typically vote Libertarian, I'm not at all sure they would be much better if in power as they seem to be much more concerned with corporate freedom than with individual freedom.

Wait, you think the Green Party supports this? What on earth gave you that idea? (hint: liberals tend to be for DECREASING police power)

The Green Party platform not only calls for much harsher enforcement against police brutality and excessive things like SWAT raids on non-dangerous people, but it calls for decreasing police powers generally through repeal of various antiterrorism laws, etc.

So I know your whole shtick is that liberals are evil tyrant communists and all, but you might be surprised if you actually looked into it!

http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php#9
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
Well, it seems to me that we first need to ask 'why'.


Um, in general older cops are AGAINST it, younger cops are for it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/cops-speak-out-on-police-_n_3688999.html

Police concerns about being outgunned may be a self-fulfilling prophecy and increasingly leads to local and state bureaucrats engaging in what lifetime appointed government workers do best: mission creep.
If not expressly prohibited, police managers will continually push the arms race. Their professional literature is predominately based on the acquiring and use of newer weapons and more aggressive techniques to physically overwhelm the public. In many cases, however, this is the opposite of smart policing.

Coupled with the paramilitary design of the police bureaucracy itself, the police give in to what is already a serious problem in the ranks: the belief that the increasing use of power against a citizen is always justified no matter the violation. The police don't understand that in many instances they are the cause of the escalation and bear more responsibility during an adverse outcome.

The suspects I encountered as a former police officer and federal agent in nearly all cases granted permission for me to search their property when asked, often despite unconcealed contraband. Now, instead of making a simple request of a violator, many in law enforcement seem to take a more difficult and confrontational path, fearing personal risk. In many circumstances they inflame the citizens they are engaging, thereby needlessly putting themselves in real and increased jeopardy.

Older officers are wary of such heavy-handed tactics. “Captains like to attack even the smallest problem, like a domestic dispute, with overwhelming force,” said a retired Los Angeles officer last week. “Swamping makes them feel safer but it also increases the chances of stuff going bad.”

I founded the Baltimore PD SWAT teams in 1975. I now work as a consultant in police related matters, primarily for defense and primarily in police involved shootings. Although I work primarily for defense, I call them as I see them. I was the police expert in the Plaintiffs' case in Calvo (SWAT shot two Labs) and DOJ's expert in prosecuting cops in N.O. involved in the post Katrina shootings (Danziger Bridge and the Glover shooting). I read your article concerning the militarization of police departments and the overuse of SWAT teams. I completely agree. The trend scares me to death and, in my opinion, leads to incidents such as the shootings in New Orleans. Keep up the good work.

I worked with a lot of guys who were combat veterans from the Vietnam era, and they certainly didn't have anything to prove to anybody. They were probably less likely to get involved in violent confrontations than the types of cops I see nowadays, most of whom do not have a military background, and some who are acting out, at least to some degree, video game fantasies about being a bad ass. I always thought that "Adam 12" would have been the best training video for cops to watch, rather than some of the officer survival stuff.

I first started my law enforcement career back in the early 1980's, I am now retired. I think cops today have lost their ability to communicate with a citizen or a suspect. Today they show up armed to the teeth with this militaristic mentality and scare the crap out of the RP (reporting party) let alone the suspect. A suspicious person is no longer a "stop and talk" its contact with overwhelming force.
 
Last edited:

Newell Steamer

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2014
6,894
8
0
I'm wondering where his solution is to not militarize them.

Impotent people usually just cry, because they are impotent and thats all they can really do.

They also fantasize about things being perfect - usually detached from reality idealogies; because again, they have no controls or influence on reality,... since they are powerless.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Message to Libertopians-

When you lie down with the dogs, you're gonna get some fleas.

Take a look at your chosen political allies, America's authoritarian Right- the Militarists, the law & order tough on crime mandatory minimum sentence silent majority, the Christian Fundies (fundamentally authoritarian), The Drug warriors, The Anti-Terrar! security freaks, the voter fraud suppressionists, the gun lobby, the privatized prison industrial complex, the billionaire power freaks who finance the information sources you trust.

Or you can just blame the big gubmint libruhls, as usual.

No-knock warrants were originally intended to bolster prosecutions in the desperately failed WoD, propped up by a huge propaganda effort about heavily armed & crazed Coke dealers. Who championed that? Conservatives. When cops apply for a no knock warrant, who gives them one? Conservative judges. Who stymies efforts to rein in the practice? Conservatives.

I'll agree that the vast majority of no knock warrants are abominations. OTOH, when I look at my own political allies, supposedly ebil big gubmint libruhls, I see people trying to reverse the laws allowing for them, particularly wrt the WoD. Funny that.

There's a reason we have the highest incarceration rate in the world- Conservatives.
 

Knowing

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2014
1,522
13
46
Why are police executing no knock raids on the wrong houses?

Why do the police need actual armored vehicles?

Why do the police need NFA weapons?

Why can't FBI agents lock their NFA weapons up somewhere instead of leaving them in their cars where they can be stolen with their body armor?

Why do we have to worry more about cops dying in the line of duty than the people they're supposed to serve and protect getting thoroughly ventilated because the police are in the wrong_place?

If it were simply "isolated incidents" then perhaps this course of inquiry might be out of line. I think when the police are getting surplus military materiel to protect us from the "terrorists" while any individual is more likely to be killed by the police than those terrorists we've discovered a self licking ice cream cone.
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
Impotent people usually just cry, because they are impotent and thats all they can really do.

They also fantasize about things being perfect - usually detached from reality idealogies; because again, they have no controls or influence on reality,... since they are powerless.

I guess this must be you...lol
 

Knowing

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2014
1,522
13
46
conservatives did this

San Francisco requested an armored vehicle with their stimulus funds. They later decided it wasn't compatible with the Feng Shui of Berkeley.

Note, you can find sources on the request from 2009 but the "outrage" is presented the article from 2012.

Lets not pretend that party is a primary driver of this behavior.
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
I don't really agree with lax use of "no-knock" warrants but at the same time "police militarization" is totally a media narrative that is not 100% the full story.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Wait, you think the Green Party supports this? What on earth gave you that idea? (hint: liberals tend to be for DECREASING police power)

Liberals maybe, but not "liberals" which is what the current Democrat party is comprised of.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Message to Libertopians-

When you lie down with the dogs, you're gonna get some fleas.

Take a look at your chosen political allies, America's authoritarian Right- the Militarists, the law & order tough on crime mandatory minimum sentence silent majority, the Christian Fundies (fundamentally authoritarian), The Drug warriors, The Anti-Terrar! security freaks, the voter fraud suppressionists, the gun lobby, the privatized prison industrial complex, the billionaire power freaks who finance the information sources you trust.

Or you can just blame the big gubmint libruhls, as usual.

No-knock warrants were originally intended to bolster prosecutions in the desperately failed WoD, propped up by a huge propaganda effort about heavily armed & crazed Coke dealers. Who championed that? Conservatives. When cops apply for a no knock warrant, who gives them one? Conservative judges. Who stymies efforts to rein in the practice? Conservatives.

I'll agree that the vast majority of no knock warrants are abominations. OTOH, when I look at my own political allies, supposedly ebil big gubmint libruhls, I see people trying to reverse the laws allowing for them, particularly wrt the WoD. Funny that.

There's a reason we have the highest incarceration rate in the world- Conservatives.

When agents with automatic weapons break down the doors of small dairy farms or backroom poker games, do you honestly believe that's because of Republicans?

Conservatives are against laws to protect people from themselves. Conservatives argue that if somebody wants to drink untreated milk or gamble away their savings, they should be able to do that.

No, my dimwitted friend, Democrats are more than happy to protect you from yourself at the end of a gun.

Just in case you try to argue against this, idiot that you are:

Yes, I know how much the Republicans are behind Obama's food safety czar.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/10/obama-food-safety-czar-defends

And of course we all know how conservative Fairfax county is, the DC area is the epicenter of redneck values:

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/“wh...a_book_the_new_warrior_cop_is_out_of_control/
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Well, it seems to me that we first need to ask 'why'.

WHY are the police getting bigger weapons, more body armor, and traveling in groups? I can think of the most obvious reason. If I was a cop, I'd sure want the best armor, the biggest gun, and the baddest-ass car to do my job. It's just this little thing I have about trying to give myself the best chance to make it home alive each day.

Is it really that hard to understand? I don't think it is. So while Oldgamer continues to post every police-negative article he can find to the forum, I'm wondering where his solution is to not militarize them. Is HE the one who's going to tell the wife of the cop who just died why he didn't have the best body armor? The best gun? The best car? Is HE the one who is going to go tell a policewoman's children that she won't be coming home because they sent 2 cops into a drug bust when they could have sent 50?

Part of living in a free society is the risk we all accept in allowing gun ownership and other things that I consider essential liberties. Part of living in that same free society is giving our law-enforcement officers the absolutely best methods of dealing with the violence that can sometimes arise from that freedom.

Let's dig deeper. Rather than throwing around the term 'militarization' (it's like talk about 'assault weapons') let's talk about what he actually means. What does he mean to take away or change to 'demilitarize' the police force?
Good post. I agree with every bit of that, but those aren't the ONLY relevant factors. When you support expanding no-knock warrants to protect police officers, you also add greatly to the risk that a civilian gets shot. Police officers are not the only people desirous of (and worthy of) living to see another day, and if you treat us as potential drug gangs or terrorist when we are not, you make yourself our enemy, not our friend.

Wait, you think the Green Party supports this? What on earth gave you that idea? (hint: liberals tend to be for DECREASING police power)

The Green Party platform not only calls for much harsher enforcement against police brutality and excessive things like SWAT raids on non-dangerous people, but it calls for decreasing police powers generally through repeal of various antiterrorism laws, etc.

So I know your whole shtick is that liberals are evil tyrant communists and all, but you might be surprised if you actually looked into it!

http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php#9
I've read the Green Party platform as part of my desire to have a viable third option. However, my core point here is that the Greens want to greatly empower government, and power given WILL be used. A more powerful government will act like a more powerful government, period.

Why are police executing no knock raids on the wrong houses?

Why do the police need actual armored vehicles?

Why do the police need NFA weapons?

Why can't FBI agents lock their NFA weapons up somewhere instead of leaving them in their cars where they can be stolen with their body armor?

Why do we have to worry more about cops dying in the line of duty than the people they're supposed to serve and protect getting thoroughly ventilated because the police are in the wrong_place?

If it were simply "isolated incidents" then perhaps this course of inquiry might be out of line. I think when the police are getting surplus military materiel to protect us from the "terrorists" while any individual is more likely to be killed by the police than those terrorists we've discovered a self licking ice cream cone.
Well said, and it points out a fallacy about Oldgamer's many anti-cop threads. Sometimes they are about the bad cops, but many times they are more about the system within which all cops work. If that system dictates that a person being served for unpaid traffic tickets be served just as if he were the Hell's Angels prime weapons runner, that is how he will be treated by both good and bad cops.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
When agents with automatic weapons break down the doors of small dairy farms or backroom poker games, do you honestly believe that's because of Republicans?

Conservatives are against laws to protect people from themselves. Conservatives argue that if somebody wants to drink untreated milk or gamble away their savings, they should be able to do that.

No, my dimwitted friend, Democrats are more than happy to protect you from yourself at the end of a gun.

Just in case you try to argue against this, idiot that you are:

Yes, I know how much the Republicans are behind Obama's food safety czar.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/10/obama-food-safety-czar-defends

And of course we all know how conservative Fairfax county is, the DC area is the epicenter of redneck values:

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/“wh...a_book_the_new_warrior_cop_is_out_of_control/


Actually the War on Drugs is a conservative thing, not a liberal thing. The War on Drugs has spawned all this shit.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
When agents with automatic weapons break down the doors of small dairy farms or backroom poker games, do you honestly believe that's because of Republicans?

Conservatives are against laws to protect people from themselves. Conservatives argue that if somebody wants to drink untreated milk or gamble away their savings, they should be able to do that.

No, my dimwitted friend, Democrats are more than happy to protect you from yourself at the end of a gun.

Just in case you try to argue against this, idiot that you are:

Yes, I know how much the Republicans are behind Obama's food safety czar.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/10/obama-food-safety-czar-defends

And of course we all know how conservative Fairfax county is, the DC area is the epicenter of redneck values:

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/“wh...a_book_the_new_warrior_cop_is_out_of_control/

Neither of those situations involve no knock warrants, the thread subject.

Nice try, anyway. The notion that officers wearing protective gear alone violates anybody's rights is absurd. It's just a different uniform.

The notion that LEO's in general & the military style organizations they serve are anything but Conservative is laughable. The notion that the SCOTUS who upholds no knock searches is anything but conservative is equally so.

It's also important to recognize history as a determinant. In that, Conservatives led the charge for a lot of what we have today, including no-knock warrants, mandatory minimums, three strikes statutes and other stuff, as well.