Total Number Of SWAT Team Raids Exploded Between 1981 And 2005

[Jhhnn]

That's simply false.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2012/sep/07/democratic_platform_drugs

And just to be fair:

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2012/aug/31/gop_platform_crime_and_drugs

They're all for the war on drugs. You just have your lips so firmly planted on Obama's sphincter that you can't see anything else.

So, uhh, supporting international efforts wrt criminal cartels & narco trafficking is exactly the same thing as supporting no knock warrants, mandatory minimums & the domestic WoD in general?

That reeks of false equivalency.

 

[Zaap]

One day Big Govt worshiping idiots will realize that big out of control government at the law MAKING stage goes hand in hand with its flipside at the law ENFORCING stage. People whine for their beloved nanny state, believing in unicorns and pots of gold at the end of rainbows.

As far as how bad it can get, once more, first world nations full of soft, spoiled pansies ain't seen NOTHING yet.

 

[BoberFett]

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

False. The thread is about SWAT team raids, not strictly no-knock warrants.

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

Really? Barney Fife knocking on the door is just a different uniform than 25 guys in body armor pulling up in an APC, knocking down the door with a battering ram, shooting the dog, and holding children at gunpoint?

LOL, Democrats.

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.

False, as my evidence shows. You can keep your head in the sand if you want, but "liberals" and their agents are more than happy to use over-the-top violence when it suits them.

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.

"But, but, but conservatives did it first!" I've heard more compelling rebuttals from 8 year old children.

 

[DominionSeraph]

yaogact

 

[Oldgamer]

yaogact

3862-277

Figure it out..

 

[Jhhnn]

False. The thread is about SWAT team raids, not strictly no-knock warrants.

from the article-

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.

That's what the article is about.

Really? Barney Fife knocking on the door is just a different uniform than 25 guys in body armor pulling up in an APC, knocking down the door with a battering ram, shooting the dog, and holding children at gunpoint?

LOL, Democrats.

Desperate conflation of actions with uniforms. You already knew that.

False, as my evidence shows. You can keep your head in the sand if you want, but "liberals" and their agents are more than happy to use over-the-top violence when it suits them.

Cops are liberals? since when? I thought cops were a semi-autonomous part of govt, operating within parameters set by law of many, many years. All the statutes mentioned, particularly the no knock WoD came to full flower under Reagan, although Nixon had made the attempt earlier. Or are you saying that Fairfax liberals can just roll back state level practices that have been in existence for decades? How would they do that? Or is the whole state of Virginia full of Libruhls?

"But, but, but conservatives did it first!" I've heard more compelling rebuttals from 8 year old children.

Part & parcel of the usual "They're just as Bad!" false equivalency, not to mention a denial of history.

 

[werepossum]

from the article-

That's what the article is about.

Desperate conflation of actions with uniforms. You already knew that.

Cops are liberals? since when? I thought cops were a semi-autonomous part of govt, operating within parameters set by law of many, many years. All the statutes mentioned, particularly the no knock WoD came to full flower under Reagan, although Nixon had made the attempt earlier. Or are you saying that Fairfax liberals can just roll back state level practices that have been in existence for decades? How would they do that? Or is the whole state of Virginia full of Libruhls?

Part & parcel of the usual "They're just as Bad!" false equivalency, not to mention a denial of history.

Time to settle the pool. Who had "idiots blame Reagan?"

Oh, that's right - everybody.

 

[highland145]

Time to settle the pool. Who had "idiots blame Reagan?"

Oh, that's right - everybody.

Showing your age...it's Bush.

 

[werepossum]

Showing your age...it's Bush.

That would at least have made more sense, but Jhhnn had to go all the way back to Reagan.

Man, proggies can hold a grudge until it dies of old age. I'm not a fan of Carter but I don't blame the last thirty years on him.

 

[highland145]

That would at least have made more sense, but Jhhnn had to go all the way back to Reagan.

Man, proggies can hold a grudge until it dies of old age. I'm not a fan of Carter but I don't blame the last thirty years on him.

Loser.

 

[shortylickens]

well every time something horrible happens people shout "WHY ARENT THE COPS EQUIPPED TO DEAL WITH THIS??!!!" and then they act surprised when the government decides to actually use the police to fix fucking problems.

 

[werepossum]

Loser.

lol

well every time something horrible happens people shout "WHY ARENT THE COPS EQUIPPED TO DEAL WITH THIS??!!!" and then they act surprised when the government decides to actually use the police to fix fucking problems.

Well, now when people ask why the SWAT team isn't available the answer will be because the whole 12-man team is off serving a warrant for delinquent child support.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Just curious if the "exploding" number of raids between 1981 and 2005 might have some connection to the number of new SWAT teams created in that same period. If you've got a shiny new toy, you're going to find a reason to use it.

 

[alzan]

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.


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.


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.

Agree.

It takes due diligence to solve this and the other problems our country faces; due diligence that is lacking both for the larger portion of citizens and our elected representatives.

 

[shortylickens]

lol


Well, now when people ask why the SWAT team isn't available the answer will be because the whole 12-man team is off serving a warrant for delinquent child support.

I dont care how they do it but the state needs to find a way to scare the ever loving shit out of dead beat dads.

Chasing them down for a couple hundred bucks every month is a pain in the ass and inefficient. Plus theres too many women losing their apartments from late rent or their kids spot in day care for late payments.

 

[werepossum]

I dont care how they do it but the state needs to find a way to scare the ever loving shit out of dead beat dads.

Chasing them down for a couple hundred bucks every month is a pain in the ass and inefficient. Plus theres too many women losing their apartments from late rent or their kids spot in day care for late payments.

Agreed. When my wife worked, one of her lawyer's clients had an ex-husband who would only bring her child support in cash to his lawyer's office parking lot, then he'd throw it on the ground so that she would have to chase it all down (not easy on a windy day.) Sadly, that behavior isn't even below average.

 

[shortylickens]

In the Navy we had a dude with 5 kids scattered across the country. He wasn't paying child support on any of them.

The states wont chase fathers all over the country, even if they are military and could easily be tracked.

 

[highland145]

In the Navy we had a dude with 5 kids scattered across the country. He wasn't paying child support on any of them.

The states wont chase fathers all over the country, even if they are military and could easily be tracked.

I thought the military would take the $$ and pay the baby mama.

Many years ago, before that damned gubment got in my business, had a guy tell me he wasn't going to pay and to eff off. Well, he signed up to be a jar head. Back in those days ('88ish) you could use the base locator with the ssn and find out where they were. I sent a letter to the CO, asking for an explanation how a member of his fine corps could blatantly disregard his obligation.

I got paid.

Was under $200..what a POS.

 

[Knowing]

I thought the military would take the $$ and pay the baby mama.

They do. Baby mamas, deadbeat parents(!), and used car dealers love military.

 

[shortylickens]

I thought the military would take the $$ and pay the baby mama.

Many years ago, before that damned gubment got in my business, had a guy tell me he wasn't going to pay and to eff off. Well, he signed up to be a jar head. Back in those days ('88ish) you could use the base locator with the ssn and find out where they were. I sent a letter to the CO, asking for an explanation how a member of his fine corps could blatantly disregard his obligation.

I got paid.

Was under $200..what a POS.

The military doesnt enforce state decisions. As a rule. But yeah dealing directly with the CO is usually the best way to get what you need.

 

[marincounty]

Of course this a conservative thing. The war on drugs, Nixon. Just say no, Reagan.
Zero tolerance, GHWB. Rudy Giuliani, war on terror. All of that militarized spending the cheerleaders were conservatives. Trillions of dollars. Armored cars for Kansas.
Some of you are confused because Bill Clinton authorized a bunch of money for police officers in order to end the Republicans bashing of Democrats for being soft on crime.
This does not mean the blame lies with Democrats, most of this is the fault of authoritarian Republicans.
Name one time the right wing packed Supreme Court has ruled against the police?
Police pursuits that kill innocent bystanders? Perfectly OK according to the Supremes.

 

[MongGrel]

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?

9/11 and Homeland Security and getting tons of money thrown at police forces remember that one?

That probably never to be done to begin with.

On top of all the money that was thrown at Haliburton at the time *Cheney cough*, private security forces et al.

Sorry, the whole thing back then suddenly seemed to me to ring too much like the SS and Fatherland to me.


Pardon my opinion.

I'm a Former Marine with three tests I could have entered into MENSA with, a Redneck, and a Democrat.

So I guess I have trouble figuring myself out a bit these days he he.

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course this a conservative thing. The war on drugs, Nixon. Just say no, Reagan.
Zero tolerance, GHWB. Rudy Giuliani, war on terror. All of that militarized spending the cheerleaders were conservatives. Trillions of dollars. Armored cars for Kansas.
Some of you are confused because Bill Clinton authorized a bunch of money for police officers in order to end the Republicans bashing of Democrats for being soft on crime.
This does not mean the blame lies with Democrats, most of this is the fault of authoritarian Republicans.
Name one time the right wing packed Supreme Court has ruled against the police?
Police pursuits that kill innocent bystanders? Perfectly OK according to the Supremes.

Well, yeh, but it's all Obama's fault, anyway. And Libruhls. You really should know that by now. Everything wrong with America started when he was sworn in.

Oh, yeh, and scary SWAT uniforms have the same effect on Libertopians that they claim for scary black guns & liberals. And those scary porkbarrel Iraq war surplus APC's, too, that are as useless to domestic law enforcement as they were to our soldiers. Probably should have given them to the Israelis or third world dictators who would use 'em.

 

[BoberFett]

Well, yeh, but it's all Obama's fault, anyway. And Libruhls. You really should know that by now. Everything wrong with America started when he was sworn in.

Oh, yeh, and scary SWAT uniforms have the same effect on Libertopians that they claim for scary black guns & liberals. And those scary porkbarrel Iraq war surplus APC's, too, that are as useless to domestic law enforcement as they were to our soldiers. Probably should have given them to the Israelis or third world dictators who would use 'em.

You still haven't explained how Obama's Food Czar is a part of this vast right wing conspiracy.

 

[ivwshane]

Just curious if the "exploding" number of raids between 1981 and 2005 might have some connection to the number of new SWAT teams created in that same period. If you've got a shiny new toy, you're going to find a reason to use it.

Exactly! Now why were new swat teams created? I suspect it has to do with the fact that we have been spending billions on the military for shit we simply don't need. What happens with military shit we don't need? Well some of it ends up in a desert where it sits unused and some of it end up being given or sold at the local level for, "you can't pass this up", prices.

Nauturally, once you have armored vehicles and assault gear you need a team to use them. Once you have a swat team, naturally, you need to give them something to do.


So what's the cause? Unnecessary military spending. Now ask yourself who is proposing cutting military spending? Yeah, pretty much nobody. You gotta love how hand outs for the needy are always the first to get cut but a cut in hand outs for the un-needy? Nope! Can't have that!