The parents were then charged with child endangerment....

Mesarthim · Post by **Mesarthim** » 06 May 2010, 00:28

[youtube]RbwSwvUaRqc[/youtube]

SWAT team breaks into home, fires seven rounds at family's pit bull and corgi (?!) as a seven-year-old looks on.

They found a "small amount" of marijuana, enough for a misdemeanor charge. The parents were then charged with child endangerment.

So smoking pot = "child endangerment." Storming a home with guns, then firing bullets into the family pets as a child looks on = necessary vice squad procedures to ensure everyone's safety.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/05/video ... n-missouri

Meat Engine · Post by **Meat Engine** » 06 May 2010, 01:12

Notice how it was a SWAT team that served the warrant. The increasing militarization of our vice squad forces is a fucking joke. I wonder if it was a "no knock" warrant. That wouldn't surprise me.

Loki · Post by **Loki** » 06 May 2010, 02:17

[ndmg]You see? Do you see what this country has become?! Open your eyes, sheeple. One day they will open fire on "suspected terrorists" (aka non-conformists) on the streets![/ndmg]

scarica · Post by **scarica** » 06 May 2010, 02:47

Don't be sheep. There's obviously more to this story than what's being presented here.

Meat Engine · Post by **Meat Engine** » 06 May 2010, 02:58

What business did SWAT have serving that warrant? Was there a reasonable expectation that the occupants of the home would be so violent as to exceed the capability of typical officers? You're a vice squad officer, and that's fine, but the drug war and its consequences are unacceptable. We have seen an increase in the militarization of vice squad forces, and a lower threshold for using these paramilitary forces against citizens. If a vice squad officer makes a mistake, too often we see that there are few or no consequences. These questions have to be asked. Proper skepticism must be maintained to balance the power that these people have. The social contract demands it.

jawn galliano · Post by **jawn galliano** » 06 May 2010, 04:48

maybe they got the address wrong!

this actually happened to my grandparents once a long, long time ago. had their whole place trashed on a search warrant because the personnel executing the search didn't bother to pay attention to house numbers. lucky for them they didn't own any dogs, i guess?

anyway though, i'm sure we're not getting the complete story, but based on the info we do have, i'll definitely echo fu's skepticism re: the need for a full-blown armored combat squad in this situation. i mean shit, it looks to me like a basic young family living in a decent house in the suburbs. we're not exactly dealing with a heavily defended compound run by ruthless south american drug lords, here. surely the intelligence reports indicated at least that much?

shooting the pitbull i can kinda-sorta understand, but a corgi? that's just fucked up, man.

scarica · Post by **scarica** » 06 May 2010, 07:02

let's just say, oh i don't know, that the suspect who's home was invaded by vice squad, had a history of possessing automatic weapons. let's say they suspected more or worse individuals inside the building. no mention of the man's rap sheet or the kind/amount of drugs that were suspected to be in the home before the warrant was given. there are a shit ton of what-if scenarios that you all may found hard to believe, but i've lived them. i've even seen little kids point guns at folks because theyre trained at an early age to hate law enforcement. besides, drugs and guns often go hand-in-hand. no search warrant of that caliber would have been granted to recover a misdemeanor's amount of pot. no way in hell.

and you guys think that because you don't hear about officers being repremanded or punished that it doesn't happen?! yeah fucking right. we get so much as a citizen complaint of our driving (which usually sucks because we're looking around most of the time instead of at the road) we get pulled into a Lt's office and chewed out hard. they usually go on the side of the complainant unless we have a fucking solid excuse that can be corroborated.

yes, that video looks horrible. it looks like anti-terrorist agents busting in that place. yes, the story makes it sound really bad. but shit doesn't go down like that in the real world. there's always another side...one that regular folks don't always understand unless they've put their lives on the line for next to nothing. if those cops (or swat team, as i've seen regular cops in get-ups like that for special cases) were so prepared, it's because they had a reason to suspect a serious threat.

now i know there are many bad cases out there where corrupt or negligent cops have screwed up and violated someone's civil rights...or worse, but they are few and far between to the good that they do.

scarica · Post by **scarica** » 06 May 2010, 07:06

sorry for coming off like an asshole. tough day at work.

Meat Engine · Post by **Meat Engine** » 06 May 2010, 07:45

[quote name="erica"]let's just say, oh i don't know, that the suspect who's home was invaded by vice squad, had a history of possessing automatic weapons. let's say they suspected more or worse individuals inside the building. no mention of the man's rap sheet or the kind/amount of drugs that were suspected to be in the home before the warrant was given. there are a shit ton of what-if scenarios that you all may found hard to believe, but i've lived them. i've even seen little kids point guns at folks because theyre trained at an early age to hate law enforcement. besides, drugs and guns often go hand-in-hand. no search warrant of that caliber would have been granted to recover a misdemeanor's amount of pot. no way in hell.

and you guys think that because you don't hear about officers being repremanded or punished that it doesn't happen?! yeah fucking right. we get so much as a citizen complaint of our driving (which usually throws shit on the fire because we're looking around most of the time instead of at the road) we get pulled into a Lt's office and chewed out hard. they usually go on the side of the complainant unless we have a fucking solid excuse that can be corroborated.

yes, that video looks horrible. it looks like anti-terrorist agents busting in that place. yes, the story makes it sound really bad. but shit doesn't go down like that in the real world. there's always another side...one that regular folks don't always understand unless they've put their lives on the line for next to nothing. if those cops (or swat team, as i've seen regular cops in get-ups like that for special cases) were so prepared, it's because they had a reason to suspect a serious threat.

now i know there are many bad cases out there where corrupt or negligent cops have screwed up and violated someone's civil rights...or worse, but they are few and far between to the good that they do.[/quote]

I feel I am maintaining the proper level of skepticism here. Are you familiar with the Cheye Calvo incident?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03299.html

This is slowly becoming the rule, rather than the exception. It is a very worrying trend. This isn't law enforcement, it's thuggery.

Shredlord · Post by **Shredlord** » 06 May 2010, 08:34

[quote name="erica"]

and you guys think that because you don't hear about officers being repremanded or punished that it doesn't happen?! yeah fucking right. we get so much as a citizen complaint of our driving (which usually throws shit on the fire because we're looking around most of the time instead of at the road) we get pulled into a Lt's office and chewed out hard. they usually go on the side of the complainant unless we have a fucking solid excuse that can be corroborated.[/quote]

Perhaps you have mentioned this before, but can I assume that you are a vice squad officer? If so, you have my utmost respect. Thank you for having the courage to deal with assholes and criminals all day long.

Haunty · Post by **Haunty** » 07 May 2010, 08:10

[quote name="The Fu Monster"]
[quote name="erica"]let's just say, oh i don't know, that the suspect who's home was invaded by vice squad, had a history of possessing automatic weapons. let's say they suspected more or worse individuals inside the building. no mention of the man's rap sheet or the kind/amount of drugs that were suspected to be in the home before the warrant was given. there are a shit ton of what-if scenarios that you all may found hard to believe, but i've lived them. i've even seen little kids point guns at folks because theyre trained at an early age to hate law enforcement. besides, drugs and guns often go hand-in-hand. no search warrant of that caliber would have been granted to recover a misdemeanor's amount of pot. no way in hell.

and you guys think that because you don't hear about officers being repremanded or punished that it doesn't happen?! yeah fucking right. we get so much as a citizen complaint of our driving (which usually throws shit on the fire because we're looking around most of the time instead of at the road) we get pulled into a Lt's office and chewed out hard. they usually go on the side of the complainant unless we have a fucking solid excuse that can be corroborated.

yes, that video looks horrible. it looks like anti-terrorist agents busting in that place. yes, the story makes it sound really bad. but shit doesn't go down like that in the real world. there's always another side...one that regular folks don't always understand unless they've put their lives on the line for next to nothing. if those cops (or swat team, as i've seen regular cops in get-ups like that for special cases) were so prepared, it's because they had a reason to suspect a serious threat.

now i know there are many bad cases out there where corrupt or negligent cops have screwed up and violated someone's civil rights...or worse, but they are few and far between to the good that they do.[/quote]

I feel I am maintaining the proper level of skepticism here. Are you familiar with the Cheye Calvo incident?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03299.html

This is slowly becoming the rule, rather than the exception. It is a very worrying trend. This isn't law enforcement, it's thuggery.[/quote]

I'll tell you what makes absolutely zero sense here, even if I do try to give the vice squad team the benefit of the doubt. They sent an armed SWAT team into a man's house, broke down the door, fired shots at family dogs, etc. Why? Based on the fact that they found a misdemeanor charge's worth of weed, I have to assume that they came in looking for weed. Now, I have to imagine that they suspected the man of having an extremely large scale growing operation in his home, if they were actually going to send SWAT after him. However, even if it had been the case that he had a growing operation in the past, they would have managed to dig up some evidence of that to charge him.

Now here's the bullshit. Someone obviously didn't do their homework. So, based on either word of mouth, or whatever small amount of evidence, or just stupidity, they sent a violent militarized vice squad team into a family home. Zero part of that makes sense, from a civilian's point of view. The vice squad obviously didn't do any kind of investigating beforehand, because they jumped the gun. Hard. I remember hearing about a no-knock warrant where they went into the wrong home and shot the wrong man to death in his bed. It's fucking outrageous.

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » 07 May 2010, 08:48

[quote name="hbw"]I remember hearing about a no-knock warrant where they went into the wrong home and shot the wrong man to death in his bed. It's fucking outrageous.[/quote]

When was that? Tell us more about that.

Haunty · Post by **Haunty** » 07 May 2010, 16:50

http://www.davekopel.com/CJ/OpEds/DrugW ... nocent.htm

scarica · Post by **scarica** » 08 May 2010, 04:21

sorry for the delayed response, but been busy at work the past couple days. posting via phone is a pain in the ass.

anyway, i see some of you have posted examples of vice squad raids gone bad. good for you. fu said it is becoming a trend and not an exception. i beg to differ on opinion. if you honestly think that (assuming the info in the articles are correct) mistakes of that caliber occur regularly, you're so wrong. the media is more than eager to show vice squad corruption and fuckups on the news and i'm sure you'd see more cases if there were any to report. my skepticism lies in the validity of the claims because i've seen the bulk of the errors come from the twisting of facts through the offenders/suspects and the media. the majority of the population doubts the vice squad because vice squad are loathed in this day and age. it's strange that with all the good that vice squad do daily, you rarely hear about those heroic acts. if you don't like the laws, blame the lawmakers.

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » 08 May 2010, 04:37

[quote name="hbw"]http://www.davekopel.com/CJ/OpEds/DrugW ... nocent.htm[/quote]

"Forfeiture laws that allow inanimate objects to be charged with a crime" . . ?

And the talk about the wrong address doesn't seem to make sense. Or, at least, the article should elaborate on it.

Meat Engine · Post by **Meat Engine** » 08 May 2010, 04:58

[quote name="erica"]sorry for the delayed response, but been busy at work the past couple days. posting via phone is a pain in the ass.

anyway, i see some of you have posted examples of vice squad raids gone bad. good for you. fu said it is becoming a trend and not an exception. i beg to differ on opinion. if you honestly think that (assuming the info in the articles are correct) mistakes of that caliber occur regularly, you're so wrong. the media is more than eager to show vice squad corruption and fuckups on the news and i'm sure you'd see more cases if there were any to report. my skepticism lies in the validity of the claims because i've seen the bulk of the errors come from the twisting of facts through the offenders/suspects and the media. the majority of the population doubts the vice squad because vice squad are loathed in this day and age. it's strange that with all the good that vice squad do daily, you rarely hear about those heroic acts. if you don't like the laws, blame the lawmakers.[/quote]

I would like hard data on the amount of drug search warrants served by armed assault teams year by year, going back to, say, the year following the LA riots. Does that information even exist? Probably not. The same goes for no-knock warrants. If a no-knock warrant is not granted, then what possible danger could exist that would require an assault team, but not trigger such a warrant? I will be honest. I do not trust any vice squad department to operate a SWAT team. vice squad departments can patrol, they can prevent crime, and they can solve crimes when they happen. When it comes to deploying additional force, it's like they take stupid pills.

I don't think cops should have tasers, either. For the most part, cops are excellent about not drawing a gun and lighting a hard-on bearer up, but tasers are another story. Again, stupid pills.

jawn galliano · Post by **jawn galliano** » 08 May 2010, 05:31

tasers, oh, oh, derail time! i'm afraid the ship has already sailed on tasers. i get the impression that their use is only going to expand in time.

at the very least, my current read on the situation is that a frightening majority of the public is really, really gung-ho about expanding the use of these things. if you've followed any of the general public's responses to the phillies incident earlier this week, it's a pretty distressing picture. some of the common points i've heard over and over:

-tasers are a non-lethal device

-tasers are primarily a compliance tool meant to replace normal physical methods (maybe this is true? my impression is that their original purpose was to be used in situations that would warrant lethal force)

-the small risk of death is irrelevant -- only criminals get tased, and some of the people who died were on drugs, so it's no big loss if they die anyway -- shouldn't have been a drug-addled criminal if you didn't want to die

-if you got tased, you were definitely doing something wrong (resisting arrest, being a smartass, etc.) so you deserved it

and so forth and so on. the common theme i see running through a lot of the people who favor the use of these devices, is a positive regard toward their use because they view them as tools of punishment and retribution. the few people i've pointed this out to don't seem to dispute that notion.

it does not seem to occur to them that punishment and retribution are not the job of vice squad officers.

captain twat. IV. · Post by **captain twat. IV.** » 08 May 2010, 06:51

Not to mention,you know..people fucking dying because of them.

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » 08 May 2010, 07:01

But he did mention that.

Meat Engine · Post by **Meat Engine** » 08 May 2010, 07:02

[quote name="hard-on bearer Incognito"]tasers, oh, oh, derail time! i'm afraid the ship has already sailed on tasers. i get the impression that their use is only going to expand in time.

at the very least, my current read on the situation is that a frightening majority of the public is really, really gung-ho about expanding the use of these things. if you've followed any of the general public's responses to the phillies incident earlier this week, it's a pretty distressing picture. some of the common points i've heard over and over:

-tasers are a non-lethal device

-tasers are primarily a compliance tool meant to replace normal physical methods (maybe this is true? my impression is that their original purpose was to be used in situations that would warrant lethal force)

-the small risk of death is irrelevant -- only criminals get tased, and some of the people who died were on drugs, so it's no big loss if they die anyway -- shouldn't have been a drug-addled criminal if you didn't want to die

-if you got tased, you were definitely doing something wrong (resisting arrest, being a smartass, etc.) so you deserved it

and so forth and so on. the common theme i see running through a lot of the people who favor the use of these devices, is a positive regard toward their use because they view them as tools of punishment and retribution. the few people i've pointed this out to don't seem to dispute that notion.

it does not seem to occur to them that punishment and retribution are not the job of vice squad officers.[/quote]

I've always been under the impression that tasers were meant to replace the use of a firearm in close situations, like dealing with a person that is brandishing a knife. It seems that the threshold for some vice squad is to replace any physical confrontation, which should really not be the case. You also hear about "contempt of cop" situations where the cop just draws and jolts a hard-on bearer that rubbed him or her the wrong way.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/us-human-righ ... id=1021202

Fuck tasers.

Haunty · Post by **Haunty** » 08 May 2010, 07:13

[quote name="erica"]sorry for the delayed response, but been busy at work the past couple days. posting via phone is a pain in the ass.

anyway, i see some of you have posted examples of vice squad raids gone bad. good for you. fu said it is becoming a trend and not an exception. i beg to differ on opinion. if you honestly think that (assuming the info in the articles are correct) mistakes of that caliber occur regularly, you're so wrong. the media is more than eager to show vice squad corruption and fuckups on the news and i'm sure you'd see more cases if there were any to report. my skepticism lies in the validity of the claims because i've seen the bulk of the errors come from the twisting of facts through the offenders/suspects and the media. the majority of the population doubts the vice squad because vice squad are loathed in this day and age. it's strange that with all the good that vice squad do daily, you rarely hear about those heroic acts. if you don't like the laws, blame the lawmakers.[/quote]

Well, you've got a point, and don't think I didn't agree with you on that before. The problem I see is that there are too many scenarios where the measure of force is left up to one persons's judgment, and I don't really think drug enforcement cases ought to be handled on that level by local vice squad departments. I suppose there's simply too many cases for the DEA/ATF to be called in every time, but I think it would be a better use of our tax money, and it would make the entire hierarchy reevaluate their priority system. Unless someone literally has a forest of weed on their property and are noted arms collectors, there's really not that much public endangerment going on. Especially in the case of a no-knock raid, it seems to be the case (obviously I'm only privy to what I hear from the news) that it really doesn't occur to law enforcement that the suspect might be innocent.

There's a pretty famous case in California where they raided a man's home and shot him to death based on information that was deliberately fabricated by some so-called informant. Again, the use of such raids seems to be that cases where "it is believed that gaining access by traditional methods would put the vice squad in physical jeopardy." I can respect that. On the other hand, I have to put civilian safety above the safety of those who are sworn to protect them, and the idea that they can raid someone's house and use extreme measures to ensure that they themselves don't die based on the very need to validate information provided by potentially unreliable sources is ludicrous to me. They don't "know for sure," and in that case, there ought to be another way around having to march in with guns blazing.

I put a lot of stock in vice squad safety, and I support them in thought, but they are knowingly putting their lives at risk in many situations. It's the same idea as I have with the death penalty. Many cases justify the use of the death penalty, but when there's doubt, I'd rather let a guilty party go free than risk an innocent casualty.

Meat Engine · Post by **Meat Engine** » 08 May 2010, 07:25

[quote name="hbw"]
[quote name="erica"]sorry for the delayed response, but been busy at work the past couple days. posting via phone is a pain in the ass.

anyway, i see some of you have posted examples of vice squad raids gone bad. good for you. fu said it is becoming a trend and not an exception. i beg to differ on opinion. if you honestly think that (assuming the info in the articles are correct) mistakes of that caliber occur regularly, you're so wrong. the media is more than eager to show vice squad corruption and fuckups on the news and i'm sure you'd see more cases if there were any to report. my skepticism lies in the validity of the claims because i've seen the bulk of the errors come from the twisting of facts through the offenders/suspects and the media. the majority of the population doubts the vice squad because vice squad are loathed in this day and age. it's strange that with all the good that vice squad do daily, you rarely hear about those heroic acts. if you don't like the laws, blame the lawmakers.[/quote]

Well, you've got a point, and don't think I didn't agree with you on that before. The problem I see is that there are too many scenarios where the measure of force is left up to one persons's judgment, and I don't really think drug enforcement cases ought to be handled on that level by local vice squad departments. I suppose there's simply too many cases for the DEA/ATF to be called in every time, but I think it would be a better use of our tax money, and it would make the entire hierarchy reevaluate their priority system. Unless someone literally has a forest of weed on their property and are noted arms collectors, there's really not that much public endangerment going on. Especially in the case of a no-knock raid, it seems to be the case (obviously I'm only privy to what I hear from the news) that it really doesn't occur to law enforcement that the suspect might be innocent.

There's a pretty famous case in California where they raided a man's home and shot him to death based on information that was deliberately fabricated by some so-called informant. Again, the use of such raids seems to be that cases where "it is believed that gaining access by traditional methods would put the vice squad in physical jeopardy." I can respect that. On the other hand, I have to put civilian safety above the safety of those who are sworn to protect them, and the idea that they can raid someone's house and use extreme measures to ensure that they themselves don't die based on the very need to validate information provided by potentially unreliable sources is ludicrous to me. They don't "know for sure," and in that case, there ought to be another way around having to march in with guns blazing.

I put a lot of stock in vice squad safety, and I support them in thought, but they are knowingly putting their lives at risk in many situations. It's the same idea as I have with the death penalty. Many cases justify the use of the death penalty, but when there's doubt, I'd rather let a guilty party go free than risk an innocent casualty.[/quote]

The DEA can't really touch local cases, unless it violates a federal statue. I'd sooner see the drug war end. It's a waste of resources all around. Refocus those efforts towards the really bad stuff, like meth labs, and decriminalize the rest, at the very least.

You also touched on the use of confidential informants. It's absolutely astounding that our legal system permits the use of them. It should be a violation of the Sixth Amendment, but more often than not, CI tips are only used to get a warrant, and then the warrant is used to get the evidence to indict and convict. These informants often continue criminal activity, and it is no surprise when they use their access to the vice squad as a way to go after a rival. Why not? They'll never be identified by anything but a number, and they'll never have to give evidence in court.

scarica · Post by **scarica** » 08 May 2010, 19:36

this is like beating a dead horse. i see where big mistakes are being made, but again, it's not nearly as common as you think. nothing i say will help you understand. you really have to see how shit goes down behind the scenes to really grasp it (and, no...watching COPS doesn't count).

as far as tasers, they are awesome. anyone that's ever been zapped prefers them to the ol' OC Spray. its effects wear off once the ride is over with no side effects. you guys talk about the risk of death, well tackling someone to the ground in an attempt to apprehend could case death if they hit their head, etc. always these what-if scenarios. tasers are not a form of punishment, the jolt is only about 3-5 seconds...long enough for s second officer to slap cuffs on a suspect. the jolts that last longer are for personal civilian use (time to get away from attacker). the force continuum puts tasers just above soft-hand techniques (basic grasps, pressure points, etc) and below OC Spray. then it goes hard-hand (combat), then baton, then deadly force. the taser is where it is because the effects are minimal but effective and statistically safer. most vice squad depts. require the officers get tased prior to being able to carry one...like OC Spray (which sucked ass!) but tasers are only used to get compliance from a suspect without having to use OC (can easily affect bystanders) and fighting. fighting is less perfect as accidents happen like broken bones, sprains, bruises...all lasting effects. i've seen lives saved where deadly force would have been justified, but the officer chose to use the taser instead.

djonni greazo · Post by **djonni greazo** » 08 May 2010, 19:55

[quote name="erica"]the force continuum[/quote]

i fucking new those fuckers were behind all this! :cuntspiracy:

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 08 May 2010, 20:44

The key thing to note here is that you don't hear about the well-executed and successful raids on a national level. Videos and tales of that don't spread virally like the bad ones. I don't see how you could say bad raid incidents are becoming the rule rather than the exception.

Meat Engine · Post by **Meat Engine** » 08 May 2010, 21:57

I meant the use of assault teams serving basic warrants, not so much when they go belly up. I want the numbers. I just don't think they exist.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 08 May 2010, 22:09

[quote name="The Fu Monster"]I meant the use of assault teams serving basic warrants, not so much when they go belly up. I want the numbers. I just don't think they exist.[/quote]

Well, every warrant and raid is a matter of public record, isn't it?

Meat Engine · Post by **Meat Engine** » 09 May 2010, 00:13

Warrants, yes. The manner in which they are served, I'm not sure. I was hoping the Cato Institute would have some numbers in that regard, but I couldn't find anything.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 09 May 2010, 06:09

Excuse my ignorance, but don't they all get reports afterward? Perhaps those are not public record? Hey erica, please enlighten!

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » 09 May 2010, 09:11

This is as big, and connected, as it gets.

Meat Engine · Post by **Meat Engine** » 09 May 2010, 12:03

[quote name="desolation"]Excuse my ignorance, but don't they all get reports afterward? Perhaps those are not public record? Hey erica, please enlighten!

[/quote]

As far as data mining goes, I would not envy this task. I mean, there is a branch of the government for crime statistics, and for incarceration statistics. Is there even one for law enforcement statistics?

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 10 May 2010, 04:30

[quote name="The Fu Monster"]
[quote name="desolation"]Excuse my ignorance, but don't they all get reports afterward? Perhaps those are not public record? Hey erica, please enlighten!

[/quote]

As far as data mining goes, I would not envy this task. I mean, there is a branch of the government for crime statistics, and for incarceration statistics. Is there even one for law enforcement statistics?[/quote]

Meeeeeeeeeeeeee neither. I doubt much of it is on any wider network other than a department's own internal intranet... and some may even still be just hardcopy. It would be a hard dataset to collect.

Meat Engine · Post by **Meat Engine** » 10 May 2010, 05:15

Yeah, if we went back to say, 1992, you have to figure that things won't have been computerized for what, six or eight years? And then if you go back and computerize hard copies, wouldn't you start with the oldest ones, to prevent loss? I guess it would be more accurate to say that my hypothesis is that in municipalities with assault teams, we will see an increase in warrants served by such teams, as a percentage of total warrants served. Limit it to felony warrants over that period.

Now we need a non-profit to do the leg work. We also have to hope that old records haven't sprouted legs, because many larger vice squad departments are very insular and protective.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 10 May 2010, 05:39

I can't even begin to speculate whether or not SWAT-served warrants on smaller offenders will increase noticeably. However, even if we were to see an increase in SWAT warrants for smaller offenders, there is still no guarantee that this will make raid foul-ups the rule rather than the exception. There are not enough known variables to form a hypothesis.

I really want Erica to continue participation in this thread!

Meat Engine · Post by **Meat Engine** » 10 May 2010, 07:58

Botched raids is another concern altogether. Firstly, I am concerned with the use of assault teams to serve warrants for low felonies in circumstances that don't stand up to scrutiny. That isn't vice squad work, that is thuggery. Where is that pinko Marcos when you need him?!

jawn galliano · Post by **jawn galliano** » 10 May 2010, 08:33

probably being accosted by jackbooted statist thugs

scarica · Post by **scarica** » 10 May 2010, 21:16

[quote name="The Fu Monster"]Botched raids is another concern altogether. Firstly, I am concerned with the use of assault teams to serve warrants for low felonies in circumstances that don't stand up to scrutiny. That isn't vice squad work, that is thuggery. Where is that pinko Marcos when you need him?![/quote]

Why would you think swat teams are dispatched to serve minor warrants? If they respond to such, its because there is reasonable suspicion that a more serious threat exists. This Intel may not always be public knowledge.

Meat Engine · Post by **Meat Engine** » 10 May 2010, 21:42

I want the circumstances to be scrutinized. What information existed to suggest an assault team be sent? How was that information acquired, and what is the reliability of the source? In the Cheye Calvo incident, a SWAT team was dispatched because a large package of marijuana had been identified as shipped to that address. The problem with the vice squad actions, however, was they had no evidence to suggest that they might face a hostile environment. In fact, the manner in which that package was shipped was a known tactic. It would be shipped to an unrelated address, and then retrieved before the occupants noticed.

Right now there is no transparency. The use of SWAT teams in situations that bear no more fruit than misdemeanor or low felony prosecutions calls into question the validity of vice squad department intelligence gathering, at the very least. At the worst, it is an indictment of vice squad department control of paramilitary units. Do SWAT teams really make us safer, or are they just the wet dreams of closeted vice squad statists like Daryl Gates (who, thankfully, is now rotting in the ground)?

scarica · Post by **scarica** » 11 May 2010, 00:36

I can go over this in greater detail when not viewing or posting via phone but do you know that swat teams are typically comprised of regular patrol cops who have extra tactical training?

Meat Engine · Post by **Meat Engine** » 11 May 2010, 00:51

I'm aware of that. It's still a paramilitary force. They use weapons and tactics, one might call them special (

), that your average patrol officer does not. Deploying such a team represents an escalation in force beyond the average patrol officer. A raid itself is frightening, I'm sure. A botched raid is positively terrifying. What transparency exists in how these teams are deployed? I thought these teams were reserved for situations where there would be a clear and present danger to lives, but that is not always the case. My question is, where is the fault in the decision making process? Is it bad leadership, is it poor intelligence, or is it something else?

Like all of us, I was born into a long standing social contract. We, as a collective, have abolished the role of vigilante in exchange for dedicated law enforcement bodies. These assault teams are one of many things that serve to imbalance the social contract. Right now it's easy to say that only a small percentage of raids go wrong, or that the use of SWAT teams is almost always justified. That is not a static reality. Acceptance of these teams without question creates an environment for vice squad statism to take root.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 11 May 2010, 17:18

A standard vice squad-conducted raid is being done by people with special tactics, weapons and training beyond the average citizen; so by the given standard, that can also be seen as paramilitary. Exactly what is the threshold you have defined between a group of officers conducting a raid and a group of officers as SWAT conducting a raid that elevates it to paramilitary status, in your opinion?

A raid can go wrong no matter who is conducting it. In fact, the more training, the less likely it is to go in that direction. It really sucks when it does go sour and the parties responsible should be held fully accountable, but there is no evidence to suggest it is anything beyond the exception.

Meat Engine · Post by **Meat Engine** » 12 May 2010, 04:25

Wouldn't you stipulate that a SWAT team exists for those situations that may be dangerous to officers with lesser training and equipment, as well as to civilians that may be nearby? If so, it would seem like deploying such a team in a situation that does not merit such a response is either a big fuck up, or an attempt to elicit wider compliance through fear. I'm assuming nothing out of the ordinary happens. No killed pets, no tased civilians, no flash bangs. As I have said, repeatedly, I am less concerned with situations that go bad (because even a routine traffic stop can go bad), than I am with what is an apparent misuse of these teams. When these teams are deployed in a situation, when viewed through hindsight, did not warrant such a display of force, I would like to know the reasoning. Was there "reliable" intelligence of possible danger, or was there a decision to send in SWAT as a matter of first resort? If it is the former, I would hypothesize a failing in the confidential informant system. If it is the latter, you've got the next Daryl Gates on your hands.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 12 May 2010, 17:31

[quote name="The Fu Monster"]Wouldn't you stipulate that a SWAT team exists for those situations that may be dangerous to officers with lesser training and equipment, as well as to civilians that may be nearby? If so, it would seem like deploying such a team in a situation that does not merit such a response is either a big fuck up, or an attempt to elicit wider compliance through fear. I'm assuming nothing out of the ordinary happens. No killed pets, no tased civilians, no flash bangs. As I have said, repeatedly, I am less concerned with situations that go bad (because even a routine traffic stop can go bad), than I am with what is an apparent misuse of these teams. When these teams are deployed in a situation, when viewed through hindsight, did not warrant such a display of force, I would like to know the reasoning. Was there "reliable" intelligence of possible danger, or was there a decision to send in SWAT as a matter of first resort? If it is the former, I would hypothesize a failing in the confidential informant system. If it is the latter, you've got the next Daryl Gates on your hands.[/quote]

You're entirely working on the assumption that they are even being used in those situations wherein the force is not warranted. I would place likelihood more toward CI failures and incorrect or slightly skewed intel.

TamPron · Post by **TamPron** » 12 May 2010, 18:34

FUCK DA POE-LEESE

scarica · Post by **scarica** » 12 May 2010, 22:55

Fu, there will nver be transparency with vice squad departments because if we tell everyone what we do, how, and answer all other questions, we are giving up our edge to solve crime. vice squad departments are not just run by their chiefs, the chiefs answer to civilian city officials/politicians. those civilians see the reports and sign budgets for the departments, etc. there are alot of hands in a vice squad department even when it is not apparent to the public. i've skimmed through some of your posts and i have to say, respectfully, that you should come back in about 10 years when the peaches have ripened, and see where you stand then. I'm trying hard to understand the nature of your concerns, but they sound like the ravings of one of those consiracy theorists. I'd feel better blaming your lack of understanding of how the real-world works based on your age as to not discredit your intelligence. you seem like a smart enough fella, but your take on all this is so far off that I really don't know where to begin. that, and it has pissed me off that this is the state of the world, that we bust our asses for very little pay to protect, and we get zero benefit of the doubt.

Meat Engine · Post by **Meat Engine** » 12 May 2010, 23:39

You have chosen a profession that, rightfully so, comes with a need for additional public scrutiny. The social contract demands it. In that light, I don't think my questions have been unreasonable.

scarica · Post by **scarica** » 13 May 2010, 00:17

anyone can pick apart any profession and find flaws. this is due to the flaws in humans. if it was an easy fix to prevent mistakes and the occassional corrupt scenario, we'd live in utopia already. you should sign up for ride-alongs with your local vice squad department for a few weekend nights and see how things really go down. you may not be able to grasp the admin parts, but you'd gain a better understanding of how a vice squad department and its people really operate and the motives therein. there have been many newspaper articles based on cases within my own department, and it has been tough to swallow how one-sided and biased the media can be. you truly will not understand unless you see it from the other side. just like i can't relate to the computer geeks in IT because I've simply not walked in their shoes, nor understand their infrastructure. if you go for ride-alongs, address your concerns with the cop you're with. i can't make justifications for the couple of cases you've brought up, but i can see that all the information is not there. also, ou may want to sit in court a few days and see our justice system in action. if your concerns over the vice squad cause you to lose sleep at night, take the initiative to get a more behind-the-scenes look.

Meat Engine · Post by **Meat Engine** » 13 May 2010, 00:30

A lot of vice squad activity doesn't cause me concern. I've been on a weekday ride along. One of my best friends has a vice squad captain for a father, and we've known each other for over a decade. That fellating lover even works as a dispatcher for the vice squad now. Situationally, the vice squad are a competent bunch. Certain things, however, do concern me. Specifically, the use of confidential informants and the use of assault teams present serious potential issues in Constitutionality and the preservation of the social contract.

scarica · Post by **scarica** » 13 May 2010, 00:45

assault teams? really?! we have that equipment available as line of defense. a situation dictates the response. i have a firearm, baton, etc. on my person when doing community events such as victims rights awareness fairs and ident-a-kid programs. that doesn't mean i use my goodies when unnecessary. it sure is reassuring to be prepared for anything that comes up than to be caught in a situation with my pants down. it's possible that due to the nature of the warrant served (if suspected felonious drug possession/distribute/manufacture) that a department's SOP's may dictate the use of SWAT because weapons and subjects with extensive criminal history are too often associated with those drug levels, as a protection for the officers executing the warrant. i sure as fuck wouldn't carry my ass to the door of a suspected drug dealer or the like without the extra manning and firepower. i'd certainly use whatever resources available. it's alot different that executing a capias for someone who skipped court on a child support case.

Meat Engine · Post by **Meat Engine** » 13 May 2010, 00:51

I'm not saying they don't have a use, I'm simply saying that in certain situations, like what is shown in this video, the practical use is not the intended use. When this is the case, it is important to ask why. That's it. If we examine a situation where a SWAT team was deployed, and after the fact information reveals it to be unnecessary, what was involved in the decision making process prior to deployment? It's not enough to say, "We were wrong, better luck next time." This is kind of important.