“This is jackboots in the morning. This is
an American nightmare that they would arrest somebody like this.”—Judge Andrew
Napolitano
The American Police State does not
discriminate.
Whatever
dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now—whether it’s in
the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America
great again—rest assured, these same practices can and will be used against you
when the government decides to set its sights on you.
We’ve
been having this same debate about the perils of government overreach for the
past 50-plus years, and still we don’t seem to learn, or if we learn, we learn
too late.
For too long now, the American
people have allowed their personal prejudices and politics to cloud their
judgment and render them incapable of seeing that the treatment being doled out
by the government’s lethal enforcers has remained consistent, no matter the
threat.
Battlefield America: T...John
W. WhiteheadBest Price: $12.99Buy New $14.99(as
of 02:50 EST - Details)
All
of the excessive, abusive tactics employed by the government today—warrantless
surveillance, stop and frisk searches, SWAT team raids, roadside strip
searches, asset forfeiture schemes, private prisons, indefinite detention,
militarized police, etc.—will eventually be meted out on the general populace.
At
that point, when you find yourself in the government’s crosshairs, it will not
matter whether your skin is black or yellow or brown or white; it will not
matter whether you’re an immigrant or a citizen; it will not matter whether
you’re rich or poor; it will not matter whether you’re Republican or Democrat;
and it certainly won’t matter who you voted for in the last presidential
election.
At
that point—at the point you find yourself subjected to dehumanizing,
demoralizing, thuggish behavior by government bureaucrats who are hyped up on
the power of their badges and empowered to detain, search, interrogate,
threaten and generally harass anyone they see fit—remember you were warned.
Take Roger Stone, one of President Trump’s longtime
supporters, for example.
This
is a guy accused of witness tampering, obstruction of justice and lying to
Congress.
As far as we know, this guy
is not the kingpin of a violent mob or drug-laundering scheme. He’s been
charged with a political crime. So what does the FBI do? They send 29 heavily armed agents in 17 vehicles to carry out a
SWAT-style raid on Stone’s Florida home just before dawn on
Jan. 25, 2019.
As the Boston Herald reports:
“After his arraignment on
witness tampering, obstruction and lying to Congress, a rattled Stone was
quoted as saying 29 agents ‘pounded on the door,’ pointed automatic
weapons at him and ‘terrorized’ his wife and dogs. Stone was taken
away in handcuffs, the sixth associate of President Trump to be indicted in
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian meddling in the 2016
election. All the charges have been related to either lying or tax evasion,
with no evidence of so-called ‘collusion’ with Russia emerging to date.”
Overkill?
Sure.
Yet
another example of government overreach and brutality? Definitely.
But here’s the thing: while
Tucker Carlson and Chris Christie and other Trump apologists appear shocked
that law enforcement personnel would stage a military assault against “an unarmed 66-year-old man who has been charged with a
nonviolent crime,” this is nothing new.
Indeed,
this is blowback, one more vivid example of how the government’s short-sighted
use of immoral, illegal and unconstitutional tactics become dangerous weapons
turned against the American people.
To be
clear, this Stone raid is far from the first time a SWAT team has been employed
in non-violent scenarios.
Nationwide, SWAT teams
routinely invade homes, break down doors, kill family pets (they always shoot the dogs first), damage
furnishings, terrorize families, and wound or kill those unlucky enough to be
present during a raid.
Payton, a 7-year-old black
Labrador retriever, and 4-year-old Chase, also a black Lab, were shot and
killed after a SWAT team mistakenly raided the mayor’s home while
searching for drugs. Police shot Payton four times. Chase was shot twice, once from behind as he
ran away. “My government blew through my doors and killed my dogs. They thought
we were drug dealers, and we were treated as such. I don’t think they really ever
considered that we weren’t,” recalls Mayor Cheye Calvo, who described
being handcuffed and interrogated for hours—wearing only underwear and
socks—surrounded by the dogs’ carcasses and pools of the dogs’ blood.
SWAT teams have been employed
to address an astonishingly trivial array of so-called criminal activity or
mere community nuisances: angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer,
and misdemeanor marijuana possession, to give a
brief sampling. In some instances, SWAT teams are even employed, in full
armament, to perform routine patrols.
If
these raids are becoming increasingly common and widespread, you can chalk it
up to the “make-work” philosophy, in which you assign at-times unnecessary jobs
to individuals to keep them busy or employed. In this case, however, the
make-work principle is being used to justify the use of sophisticated military
equipment and, in the process, qualify for federal funding.
SWAT
teams originated as specialized units dedicated to defusing extremely
sensitive, dangerous situations. They were never meant to be used for routine
police work such as serving a warrant.
Frequently
justified as vital tools necessary to combat terrorism and deal with rare but
extremely dangerous criminal situations, such as those involving hostages, SWAT
teams—which first appeared on the scene in California in the 1960s—have now
become intrinsic parts of federal and local law enforcement operations, thanks
in large part to substantial federal assistance and the Pentagon’s 1033
military surplus recycling program, which allows the transfer of military
equipment, weapons and training to local police for free or at sharp discounts.
Mind you, this is the same
program that President Trump breathed new life into back in 2017.
As the role of paramilitary
forces has expanded to include involvement in nondescript police work
targeting nonviolent suspects, the mere
presence of SWAT units has actually injected a level of danger and violence
into police-citizen interactions that was not present as long as these
interactions were handled by traditional civilian officers.
A Government of Wolves...John
W. WhiteheadBest Price: $9.24Buy New $11.56(as
of 01:10 EST - Details)
There are few communities without a SWAT team today.
In
1980, there were roughly 3,000 SWAT team-style raids in the US.
Incredibly, that number has
since grown to more than 80,000 SWAT team raids per year.
Where
this becomes a problem of life and death for Americans is when these
militarized SWAT teams are assigned to carry out routine law enforcement tasks.
No
longer reserved exclusively for deadly situations, SWAT teams are now
increasingly being deployed for relatively routine police matters such as
serving a search warrant, with some SWAT teams being sent out as much as five
times a day.
In the state of Maryland
alone, 92 percent of 8200 SWAT missions were used to execute
search or arrest warrants.
Police in both Baltimore and
Dallas have used SWAT teams to bust up poker games.
A Connecticut SWAT team swarmed a bar suspected of serving
alcohol to underage individuals.
In Arizona, a SWAT team was used to break up an alleged cockfighting
ring.
An Atlanta SWAT
team raided a music studio, allegedly out of a concern that it might
have been involved in illegal music piracy.
A Minnesota SWAT team raided
the wrong house in the middle of the night, handcuffed the three young
children, held the mother on the floor at gunpoint, shot the family dog, and
then “forced the handcuffed children to sit next to the carcass
of their dead pet and bloody pet for more than an hour” while they
searched the home.
A California SWAT team drove
an armored Lenco Bearcat into Roger Serrato’s yard,
surrounded his home with paramilitary troops wearing face masks, threw a
fire-starting flashbang grenade into the house in order, then when Serrato
appeared at a window, unarmed and wearing only his shorts, held him at bay with
rifles. Serrato died of asphyxiation from being trapped in the flame-filled
house. Incredibly, the father of four had done nothing wrong. The SWAT team had
misidentified him as someone involved in a shooting.
And then there was the police
officer who tripped and “accidentally” shot and killed Eurie Stamps,
an unarmed grandfather of 12, who had been forced to lie facedown on
the floor of his home at gunpoint while a SWAT team attempted to execute a
search warrant against his stepson.
Equally outrageous was
the four-hour SWAT team raid on a California high school,
where students were locked down in classrooms, forced to urinate in overturned
desks and generally terrorized by heavily armed, masked gunmen searching for
possible weapons that were never found.
These
incidents are just the tip of the iceberg.
What
we are witnessing is an inversion of the police-civilian relationship.
Rather
than compelling police officers to remain within constitutional bounds as
servants of the people, ordinary Americans are being placed at the mercy of
militarized police units.
This
is what happens when paramilitary forces are used to conduct ordinary policing
operations, such as executing warrants on nonviolent defendants.
Unfortunately,
general incompetence, collateral damage (fatalities, property damage, etc.) and
botched raids tend to go hand in hand with an overuse of paramilitary forces.
In
some cases, officers misread the address on the warrant.
In others, they simply barge
into the wrong house or even the wrong building.
Against the State: An ...Llewellyn
H. Rockwell Jr.Best Price: $4.99Buy New $9.95(as
of 09:35 EST - Details)
In another subset of cases
(such as the Department of Education raid on Anthony Wright’s home), police conduct a
search of a building where the suspect no longer resides.
If
you’re wondering why the Education Department needs a SWAT team, you’re not
alone.
Among those federal agencies
laying claim to their own law enforcement divisions are the State
Department, Department of Education, Department of Energy,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service, to name just a few. In fact, it says something
about our reliance on the military that federal agencies having nothing
whatsoever to do with national defense now see the need for their own
paramilitary units.
SWAT
teams have even on occasion conducted multiple, sequential raids on wrong
addresses or executed search warrants despite the fact that the suspect is
already in police custody. Police have also raided homes on the basis of
mistaking the presence or scent of legal substances for drugs. Incredibly,
these substances have included tomatoes, sunflowers, fish, elderberry bushes,
kenaf plants, hibiscus, and ragweed.
As
you can see, all too often, botched SWAT team raids have resulted in one
tragedy after another for the residents with little consequences for law
enforcement.
Unfortunately,
judges tend to afford extreme levels of deference to police officers who have
mistakenly killed innocent civilians but do not afford similar leniency to
civilians who have injured police officers in acts of self-defense.
Even
homeowners who mistake officers for robbers can be sentenced for assault or
murder if they take defensive actions resulting in harm to police.
And as journalist Radley Balko shows in his in-depth study of police
militarization, the shock-and-awe tactics utilized by many SWAT
teams only increases the likelihood that someone will get hurt.
Drug
warrants, for instance, are typically served by paramilitary units late at
night or shortly before dawn. Unfortunately, to the unsuspecting
homeowner—especially in cases involving mistaken identities or wrong addresses—a
raid can appear to be nothing less than a violent home invasion, with armed
intruders crashing through their door. The natural reaction would be to engage
in self-defense. Yet such a defensive reaction on the part of a homeowner,
particularly a gun owner, will spur officers to employ lethal force.
That’s exactly what happened
to Jose Guerena, the young ex-Marine who was
killed after a SWAT team kicked open the door of his Arizona home during a drug
raid and opened fire. According to news reports, Guerena, 26 years old and the
father of two young children, grabbed a gun in response to the forced invasion
but never fired. In fact, the safety was still on his gun when he was killed.
Police officers were not as restrained. The young Iraqi war veteran was
allegedly fired upon 71 times. Guerena had no prior criminal record, and the
police found nothing illegal in his home.
Aiyana Jones is dead because of a SWAT
raid gone awry. The 7-year-old was killed after a Detroit SWAT team—searching
for a suspect—launched a flash-bang grenade into her family’s apartment, broke
through the door and opened fire, hitting the little girl who was asleep on the
living room couch. The cops weren’t even in the right apartment.
Exhibiting a similar lack of
basic concern for public safety, a Georgia SWAT team launched a flash-bang grenade
into the house in which Baby Bou Bou, his three sisters and his parents were
staying. The grenade landed in the 2-year-old’s crib,
burning a hole in his chest and leaving him with scarring that a lifetime of
surgeries will not be able to easily undo.
Alberto Sepulveda, 11, died from one “accidental” shotgun
round to the back after a SWAT team raided his parents’ home.
The
problems inherent in these situations are further compounded by the fact that
SWAT teams are granted “no-knock” warrants at high rates such that the warrants
themselves are rendered practically meaningless.
This sorry state of affairs
is made even worse by U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have essentially done away with the need for a “no-knock” warrant
altogether, giving the police authority to disregard the protections
afforded American citizens by the Fourth Amendment.
In
the process, Americans are rendered altogether helpless and terror-stricken as
a result of these confrontations with the police.
Indeed,
“terrorizing” is a mild term to describe the effect on those who survive such
vigilante tactics. “It was terrible. It was the most frightening experience of
my life. I thought it was a terrorist attack,” said 84-year-old Leona Goldberg,
a victim of such a raid.
Yet
this type of “terrorizing” activity is characteristic of the culture that we
have created.
If
ever there were a time to de-militarize and de-weaponize local police forces,
it’s now.
While
we are now grappling with a power-hungry police state at the federal level, the
militarization of domestic American law enforcement is largely the result of
the militarization of local police forces, which are increasingly militaristic
in their uniforms, weaponry, language, training, and tactics and have come to
rely on SWAT teams in matters that once could have been satisfactorily
performed by traditional civilian officers.
Yet
American police forces were never supposed to be a branch of the military, nor
were they meant to be private security forces for the reigning political
faction.
Instead,
they were intended to be an aggregation of countless local police units,
composed of citizens like you and me that exist for a sole purpose: to serve
and protect the citizens of each and every American community.
As a
result of the increasing militarization of the police in recent years, however,
the police now not only look like the military—with their foreboding uniforms
and phalanx of lethal weapons—but they function like them, as well.
Thus,
no more do we have a civilian force of peace officers entrusted with serving
and protecting the American people. Instead, today’s militarized law
enforcement officials have shifted their allegiance from the citizenry to the
state, acting preemptively to ward off any possible challenges to the
government’s power, unrestrained by the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment.
As journalist Herman Schwartz
observed, “The Fourth Amendment was designed to stand between us and arbitrary
governmental authority. For all practical purposes, that shield has been shattered, leaving our liberty
and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on
the highway and jail official.”
Heavily
armed police officers, the end product of the government—federal, local and
state—and law enforcement agencies having merged, have become a “standing” or
permanent army, composed of full-time professional soldiers who do not disband.
Yet
these permanent armies are exactly what those who drafted the U.S. Constitution
and Bill of Rights feared as tools used by despotic governments to wage war
against its citizens.
This
phenomenon we are experiencing with the police is what philosopher Abraham
Kaplan referred to as the law of the instrument, which essentially says that to
a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
In
the scenario that has been playing out in recent years, we the citizenry have
become the nails to be hammered by the government’s henchmen, a.k.a. its guns
for hire, a.k.a. its standing army, a.k.a. the nation’s law enforcement
agencies.
The problem, as one reporter rightly concluded, is “not that life has
gotten that much more dangerous, it’s that authorities have chosen to respond to even innocent
situations as if they were in a warzone.”
A study by a political scientist at Princeton University concludes that
militarizing police and SWAT teams “provide no detectable benefits in terms of officer safety
or violent crime reduction.”
The study, the first systematic analysis on the use and consequences of
militarized force, reveals that “police militarization neither reduces rates of violent crime nor changes the
number of officers assaulted or killed.”
In other words, warrior cops aren’t making us or themselves any safer.
Indeed, as I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People,
it is increasingly evident that militarized police armed with weapons of war
who are empowered to carry out pre-dawn raids on our homes, shoot our pets, and
terrorize our families have not made America any safer or freer.
The sticking point is not whether
Americans must see eye-to-eye on the pressing issues of the day, but whether we
can agree that no one should be treated in such a fashion by their own
government.
Constitutional
attorney and author John W. Whitehead [send him mail] is founder and president
of The
Rutherford Institute. He is the author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police
State and The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks).
Copyright
© 2019 The
Rutherford Institute
