Justification of police militarization misses the point

The Sandstorm Scholar published a piece titled: Militarization of law enforcement: a peace officer’s view. The view came from a Lubbock County Sheriff’s Office lieutenant and was thoughtful and reasonable. But, in justifying military-style weaponry and actions for “high risk entries”, it missed the point that many “high risk entries” are themselves objectionable.

SWAT breaking down a door as a military-style action.

SWAT breaking down a door as a military-style action. Courtesy AlaskaActivism blog.

As I remember reading some time ago, most “high risk entries” are rarely about stopping a crime in progress but about serving an arrest warrant. And, the operations so mirror what the Crown engaged in in Colonial days as to cause great concern for many of us who deeply value the protections afforded us by the Constitution.

… it missed the point that many “high risk entries” are themselves objectionable.

From studies I’ve read, many were published after the Branch Davidian debacle outside of Waco,  there are few cases of “high risk entry” serving a warrant where the person could not have been placed under surveillance and arrested in the open when leaving the property. You may recall that McLennan County’s sheriff was upset over the government’s bloody raid on David Koresh because his department could have arrested Koresh at just about any time peacefully when Koresh was driving to town.

Also, it seems, if memory serves me, that most of these break-the door-down entries are for drug dealing warrants often when there is little evidence of the target being prone to exceptional violence.

Dallas County Police to execute warrants in 15-ton-vehicle capable of withstanding ‘nuclear environment’

Dallas County Police to execute warrants in 15-ton-vehicle capable of withstanding ‘nuclear environment’

I do not object to police having the tools needed to do their job. The question arises as to what is their job and what is appropriate policing in a non-police state. Quelling insurrection is a job of the state or national guard, not police and thus there is little reason for Texas police departments having the military equipment they’ve been buying, or getting free mostly, from the Feds.

Share Pratt on Texas

Comments

  1. Robert Miller says

    Before I vent my personal complaint, I recommend that you read Radley Balko’s book “The Rise of the Warrior Cop,” and also read George J. Thompson/Jerry B. Jenkins book “Verbal Judo The Gentle Art of Persuasion.” A comparison of these two books is very revealing.
    Now my personal experience. During the night of 6/24/2013 I confronted an unknown, suspicious, and potentially dangerous prowler in the alley behind my home. He refused to reveal to me the reason for his presence and made no effort leave and he caused me to fear when he moved toward me. I continued to observe him and after a time the police arrived. However, they did not arrive in a peaceful manner. Instead the swarmed the scene in a violent, aggressive, militarized manner reminiscent of the gestapo. They ignored the prowler and they physically and verbally attacked me and threatened to shoot me. This resulted in me suffering physical injury and pain, mental anguish, and emotional stress. In addition, they did the same to my wife and a nearby neighbor. They continued by making a criminal charge against me and taking me to jail in my night ware. Later the Grand Jury refused to indict me. I personally feel the news media, the Lubbock Police, and the District Attorney were negligent and unprofessional and did their best to cover up the mistakes of the police military. I have yet to meet a friend, acquaintance or stranger that disagrees with me.

Speak Your Mind

*

© Pratt on Texas / Perstruo Texas, Inc.