JoSH@RED.RUTGERS.EDU (JoSH) (10/16/85)
Poli-Sci Digest Wed 16 Oct 85 Volume 5 Number 41 [Messages still pending. Last ish, 40, was erroneously labelled 39.] Contents: Police Privilege ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Oct 85 16:45 PDT From: Sybalsky.pa@Xerox.ARPA Subject: A New Privileged Class... Well, that seems to have gotten things started nicely (:-)! Let's have a quick review of my understanding of the rules, then I'll get to peoples' replies: --To search someone's property, the police need either to have seen something presumptively illegal, or have a search warrant. --To get a search warrant, one must show probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of some crime will be found in the place to be searched. --Outside the context of arrest or apprehension of an escaping prisoner, one must have good cause to fear imminent bodily harm before using deadly force. --To arrest someone, you need to have seen him do it, have a warrant, or have probable cause to believe he did it (which you'll need to get a warrant, anyhow). Assuming we agree on those (modulo the obvious exceptions for searches of autos, etc.), let's begin! Hank Walker: "...the reason the police can get away with commando-style raids in these Northern CA backwoods areas..." Actually, Canyon, CA is a suburb of San Francisco. It is NOT in Mendocino County, which is where the other drug raids, sweeps, etc. have been focused. "...is that a lot of people think that many of the residents are criminals..." Oh. And if you believe that, then the rules don't apply. I trust your basis for that belief is well-rooted in observable facts. Your (or a policeman's) "belief" of something doesn't--last I heard--constitute probable cause for a search. No, let me take that back. Until fairly recently (20 years, say), it was not uncommon for police to "round up the usual suspects" when something happened [the name of my reference for this escapes me, but he's the WVa Supreme Court judge who wrote "Why the Courts Don't Work"]. It STILL isn't uncommon--witness the reports in the SF Chronicle of the police rounding up hundreds of street people, just to clear the streets. The only time you hear anything loud is when some respectable person gets caught up by accident--e.g. the ACLU attorney who was arrested in SF last Spring for blocking the sidewalks as he observed the SF police harrassing street people. Boy, did THAT get the SFPD some unwanted publicity. Then they went and pulled a similar game with a local columnist (who just happened to be giving the chief a rough time). On second thought, I see what you mean--it IS all they need. "...The police obviously had good grounds for suspecting dope growers in that area..." Ah, like that notorious ex-Navy criminal investigator. Obviously a bad apple! "...and given previous gun battles..." Leaving aside the issue of whether prohibition laws make any sense, still: I think the word I used above is "imminent" danger. I'll grant a police officer's right(!) to carry an unholstered gun while serving a search warrant (I AM sensitive to realities). BUT--I won't grant him that right if he steps on my property without a warrant. Go re-read the part where the investigator's daughter described the police coming up their driveway. Now tell me that you really believe they had a warrant allowing them to be there. "but if I thought some gang member might be occupying the house up ahead, I'd think about myself first...." Amen, brother--but only granting that you had any business being on his property to start with--and I spell that "observed infraction" or "warrant". - - - - - Rodney Hoffman: I'm not so sure we're as far apart as you think. I quite agree that "despising civil libertarians" etc. are a symptom of the same underlying cause as the glorification of police. Let's back up a bit: Everyone agrees that the job of the police is to protect the community. Where things diverge is in HOW they're supposed to do the job: history tells us that most communities (i.e., the people in a position to do something to the police if they fuck up) DON'T CARE how the job gets done so long as it doesn't intrude on them. Naturally, the police (generalizing shamelessly--I KNOW this isn't true of each individual policeman!) tend to do what makes their jobs easier: they take short cuts. Eventually, they short-cut somebody who can fight back. Until they do, though, attitudes like Hank Walker's assure that they;ll go unmolested. Hank, you will recall, was perfectly happy to believe that the police were completely justified in barging onto peoples' property sans warrant. Now, how does this tie into my point? I think my point and yours were two sides of the same coin: Once there's a bureau in place to take care of a problem, people tend to abdicate responsibility for the problem to the bureau--so long as "they're doing a good job". Most people, being respectable folk, don't interact with the police outside traffic tickets; thus, they don't bear the brunt of any shortcuts the police take with the riff-raff. As long as crime is down, the police are doing a good job. When crime starts to rise (as it did from 1955-1980 or so), the police are wont to claim that they need more manpower, less fetters in the form of Miranda rights, etc. Given these things (they tell us), they can do a much better job. Since most people never run afoul of the law--and hence don't need to use these rights--they tend to prefer the benefit they can see (lower crime) over the one they can't (protection from arbitrary police behavior). This leads to calls for "support of the local police", to steal a phrase. Of course, people who are sensitive to loss of rights (or who have been forcibly searched without cause) tend to oppose this extension of police power. The majority (dare I invoke Hank Walker's name again?), though, see these folk as disrupters, as preventing the police from doing their job right. Over time, bureaucracies tend to grow. The police, alas, are no exception. They will tend to take on more and more responsibility for crime control, peace keeping, etc--and people will happily cede it to them: Who wants the rough, thankless job of keeping the streets safe from hoods, after all? Naturally, the police press for measures they think will make their jobs easier, and for measures which guarantee their monopoly on crime control--and the "support-the-police" types back them up in the legislature. The results are twofold: --A broadening of a policeman's discretion to stop people and search them, to investigate on flimsier and flimsier grounds, etc. Stop-and-frisk laws are an example of this. An officer doesn't need any probable cause to believe that you've committed a crime, he only needs a reason to believe that you may be armed (legally or not) and he may search you. Forcibly if need be. --An increasing monopoly on the part of the police on the means of defending person and property against crime. How are you allowed to defend yourself from a mugger? Well, let's see... In California, anyhow, you can't carry a stick (clubs are "dangerous weapons" and possession of one is worth 6mo in jail), you can't carry an openly-holstered gun (well, you CAN, but not within city limits), and you need a permit to carry mace (which is watered-down anyhow, and generally regarded by police as ineffective). Ah, yes! Call the police! - - - - - RWhitney: "Let's start with terms like 'raiders' and 'Rambo-style'..." I'd have to claim that the term "raider" is completely accurate. They entered the town in force (between 35 and 50 peace officers), tramped onto private property without warrants ,etc. If that ain't raiding, what is? The phrase "Rambo-style" is fanciful, I grant you, but seems appropriate under the circumstances--an armed team swooping down on apparently-innocent people. Were the citizens in mortal terror? probably not--but few enough people have experience facing armed men that I expect a number of them were rather frightened. "...The police don't use drug enforcement as an excuse to dress up in cammies and terrorize local communities..." Pray tell, then, why is it that the DEA and project CAMP (the anti-marijuana campaign in Mendocino Country) never want for one-time volunteers to go along. I have seen published reports of interviewees saying they wanted to try it once. NOT that they wanted to do their part in eliminating drugs, but just to go along once. Why, if not for the thrill? Frankly, I'm inclined to believe that the real problem here is the prohibition mentality on the part of certain government officials: I have seen interviews with various DEA higher-ups who imply strongly that they'd be happy to enforce bans against caffeine and alcohol--if only they could get Congress to see it their way. Read "The Drugged Nation", by a former DEA commissioner for a sample of this. "...drug enforcement is a VERY dangerous business..." I quite believe it, and while I don't think much of drug laws, I see why heavily-armed raids would be a necessity from the police side. BUT: While I'll grant your (the police's) right to stage a heavily-armed raid with the proper warrants behing you, I can't condone blatant trespassing and terrorism. If you'll re-read the article, you'll see a part where the Navy investigator's daughter describes the armed men coming up the driveway, telling her to get out of their way. I guess I'm not willing to believe that they had a warrant allowing them to search that property. Without such a warrant, WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY DOING THERE? Many similar stories come out of the Mendocino County enforcement activity: Stories of armed men marching up to peoples' doors and searching homes at gunpoint sans warrant, of helicopters flying low (<100ft) over property, and chasing people down roads. These stories have had enough weight--enough people experienced them--to convince a federal judge to issue an injunction against certain of the activities. Now, I would claim that policemen are well trained in the law. They KNEW they were trespassing, etc. While they may have believed with all their hearts that the homes they searched contained drugs--THEY HAD NO PROBABLE CAUSE. I infer this from their failure to obtain warrants to permit the searches. As far as I'm concerned, there went their right to appear armed on private property. "If you knew what I know, you might not be so quick to condemn the boys in blue/cammouflage." Objected to as assuming a fact not in evidence: You assume that I don't understand the problem from the police standpoint. I say "Not so!". A number of my friends are police or auxiliary police, and I KNOW that drug enforcement is dangerous, and I sympathize with an officer's desire to come through unharmed. You seem to think that these somehow excuse them from obeying the rules: I must disagree. "I have trouble believing you really accept this as the way things are. [Re use of force &c with impunity]" Oh, I don't believe it's universally true--but it's plenty true enough for my generalization. I suggest that you read the several books written by Paul Chivigny, late of the ACLU's Citizen's Rights project in New York City. The events he describes generally have the following scenario: --Civilian does something that is seen by an officer as threatening that officer's position or authority. Examples: Swearing at an officer in public, refusing an illegal order to "move along", complaining that the officer's car has a bumper sticker saying "Vote NO on the Civilian Review Board". --Officer arrests civilian, who is either roughed up in the process, or pushed down the stairs at the station. --Civilian is charged with Disorderly Conduct to justify the initial arrest, and with Resisting Arrest or Assaulting an Officer, to justify the roughing-up. --Judge believes the officer's version of the story. Or, if the charges are dismissed, it's done only if the civilian signs a waiver of claims against the police department. "Voluntarily", of course. --Having been convicted, there's no practical way to sue the officer over the incident, since the question of the conviction can be raised at trial.... This happens too many times, and to too many people who a priori I wouldn't believe created shoving scenes with police. I HAVE to believe it happens. But wait, there's more: There have been a number of anti-Kissinger demonstrations in San Francisco. Generally, the crowd gets out of hand at some point, necessitating some police action to keep traffic moving & the streets passable. Fine. The last time that happened, tho, there were some TV crews on the scene. They made the mistake of starting to film the police beat a young lady senseless--whereupon, the police attacked the TV crew, smashing their lights and cameras. No officer was ever disciplined in either of these incidents--the local chief claims that the police were defending themselves, because the TV lights blinded them, creating a dangerous situation. As far as I can tell, the only danger was to the officers' jobs and freedom. Or back up slightly--to Chicago, in 1968. I hold no brief for the violence perpetrated by the young protesters there--but I can't find any justification for the beatings and clubbings I saw take place ON TV. Discipline? Never was any. Now, if that had been plain ol' me chasing a drunk down the street with a club, I'd have wound up in jail facing charges of Assault with a Deadly Weapon--a felony, by George! "...I face a shooting review board..." Your department is better than most, and I must compliment it. I only wish more areas were like yours. "As a matter of fact, I'm more likely to be penalized for shooting someone as a police officer than as an average citizen, justified or not." Would it be out of place for me to point out that 11% of police shootings of suspects wind up being adjudged unjustified, vs 2% of civilian shootings of suspects? I have no comparable figures for murder and aggravated assault--I'd be very interested in them, if you do. "'Trampling up your driveway'...You're apparently talking about a different incident than the one in the article..." Actually, the first and third points I made, "Trampling up your driveway, ordering you out of the way at gunpoint" and "siezing your camera because you were taking photos of them" are taken directly from the article. I must admit, the second item is taken from a composite of reports from the Mendocino County drug enforcement actions, where a Federal court finally had to enjoin such behavior. "You say [this isn't a polemic against police officers], but the rest of your entry seems to indicate otherwise." Nyet. My polemic is against a state of affairs where police are regarded in much the same light as doctors are: all the responsibility for crime control is handed over to them, along with great power--power which is subject to abuse, as the incidents I've outlined above indicate. What I'd like to see is people taking back responsibility for their own safety, much as people are taking back responsibility for their own health: Using the doctor as an expert, and relying on his help, but providing your own first line of defense against disease. In the long run, I claim, it's the only stable way to do it. "Generally, though, I'll admit you're basically correct [about an officer's word being taken over a civilian's]. The reason for this though is that the officer generally has nothing to gain if you're found guilty or innocent..." Ah, but I've outlined a class of cases where the officer DOES care--because he was enforcing his position of authority rather than enforcing the law, and that can't be allowed to come out. Mind, I'm not saying that most or many officers are that way, but it DOES happen, and the way things are now set up, there's no efficient way to check the tendency. If we could weed out officers with John Wayne complex, we'd be much better off. But we can't, because the mechanisms aren't there, and police unions (understandably enough) resist their introduction. "This [that police don't get punished for brandishing weapons, where a civilian would] is the fault of your state legislature, not the police" Nope--in theory, brandishing a weapon is a felony in this state, and rightly so. (Brandishing means displaying a weapon and indicating a willingness to use it in such a way as to create a reasonable fear of its use). My complaint is that the people who were running up the Navy investigator's driveway were brandishing their weapons--and damn all is going to get done about it. The same is true of the brandishing of nightsticks, in my opinion--it ought to be illegal (the penal code isn't clear, and I don't have the annotated version to hand), but when was the last time an officer was arrested for it? vs the arrest of a civilian for possessing a club? "I agree with this [that we should leave crime control to the police, since they know best]. How well do you know the laws of your state?" Tolerably well, as it turns out--better than a number of officers I've talked with. Actually, I'm willing to believe that every civilian (close enough) knows that it's illegal break and enter in the dead of night, and can be trusted with deciding whether to use deadly force in defending against such an incident. I'll repeat here that civilians do better than police when it comes to mistakenly using deadly force (2% wrong vs 11% nationwide). On the strength of that, I claim that civilians should be encouraged to provide the first line of defense against crime in the home. Given that, it's a small step to encouraging people to provide their first line of defense against crime in the street--except that most states actively DIScourage it by effectively disarming civilians. I was a tad disappointed that you lend credence to one of my points--namely, that the police discourage civilian involvement. In the long run, this can't work, any more than I can abdicate responsibility for my personal health to my doctor. "You and the state of California made this decision [that I don't need to be armed, since the police will defend me]. Don't blame the police." I don't blame the police--that's my whole point. NONE of this has been blaming the police for this attitude--though police departments DO foster it (it is the official policy of the New York and Chicago and Oakland PDs, for example, that civilian ownership of guns is a bad thing and should be discouraged, and you agree that crime control should be left completely to the police, apparently). Actually, I own a .38, and keep a speed-loader filled with Glasers. I also don't have any children, so this is a tolerably safe thing to do. I also live on the 10th floor, so I never expect to have to use them--though I can consistently hit in the 8 ring on a sillouette target at 15 yards, firing 6 shots in 15 seconds. And I KNOW the highly-restricted conditions under which I could reasonably use that gun; I'm not going to shoot thru the door just because someone is scratching around the lock. According to studies of criminals, the single most important deterrant--the reason most given for avoiding a particular target--is a fear that the occupant is armed. This sounds like an argument for widespread possession of guns to me. "I don't know about these incidents [the 3 police shootings of face-down suspects that were ruled accidental], but just maybe they were accidents, or had you forgotten to consider that?" Nope, I hadn't. But I find it a trifle odd: Once the suspect has been handcuffed (as in 2 of the cases I'm sure of), there's no need to be pointing a shotgun at his head (which discharged in one instance). "'Without cause?' If they think you might be carrying it illegally, they have all the cause they need." Ah, that's right--probable cause doesn't come into it. Stop and frisk laws to the contrary notwithstanding, I'm inclined to demand probable cause before ANY search. If you as an officer have a good reason to detain someone (read probable cause to arrest him), then you arrest him and search him. If not, then you're merely suspicious, so you stop the guy. And he pulls a gun, and that's the end of you--I know the problem with my scenario. Actually, the solution is simple [simple-minded?], but goes against the grain of simplifying law enforcement: No stop without probable cause, period. That, I grant, makes it tougher to enforce the law. I'm ambivalent on this one, but inclined to come down on the side of limiting police power. "Damages? For what?" I gather that you don't care if a group of cammouflaged men come running up your drive, carrying guns, and order you out of the way? To my mind, that's an assault at civil law, since it creates a reasonable fear of harm. That sounds actionable to me. "In short, the police ARE usually punished for 'doing wrong.'...." Sigh. I'm really glad the Phoenix PD is as well run as it is. I only wish others were as well. Doing that (to beat my drum) requires that citizens take an active role in crime prevention. "Basically, I believe that if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear from the police." If you're white, clean, reasonably well-off, and never cross a policeman, you're right. Otherwise, you may have a problem. Personally, I've had nothing but good dealings with police; but I've seen incidents, both on TV and personally, where people got the shaft. Again, I KNOW those are a minority (a tiny minority) if cases. But I complain that there is no mechanism in place to control the abberations. - - - - - To sum up: At present, the police have a pretty-near monopoly (at least in the cities) on the ability to defend against crime. There are not (generally speaking) good mechanisms in place to control this monopoly, which leads to abuses. This means there must be more and more direct oversight of police departments by local civilians. It does NOT mean a lot of second-guessing, but it DOES mean making things less easy for police to do the job alone. But that's OK: Crime control has to be a partnership--the police can't be everywhere at once. This means that civilians have to be encouraged to be the first line of defense, and must be allowed and encouraged to have the means to do so. It means having local police train civilians in the use of arms and in the laws that go with it. My favorite is the program of clasroom study followed by a practicum with unloaded guns where you face several false alarms and ONE real intruder. Ideally, the police should serve as a constabulary (patrol force, watchful eye), and as specialists in investigation and special circumstances (e.g., hostage situations). EVERYONE should share the responsibility for crime prevention and first-line defense. --John ------------------------------ End of POLI-SCI Digest - 30 - -------
poli-sci@cca.UUCP (10/16/85)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Poli-Sci Digest Wed 16 Oct 85 Volume 5 Number 41 [Messages still pending. Last ish, 40, was erroneously labelled 39.] Contents: Police Privilege ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Oct 85 16:45 PDT From: Sybalsky.pa@Xerox.ARPA Subject: A New Privileged Class... Well, that seems to have gotten things started nicely (:-)! Let's have a quick review of my understanding of the rules, then I'll get to peoples' replies: --To search someone's property, the police need either to have seen something presumptively illegal, or have a search warrant. --To get a search warrant, one must show probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of some crime will be found in the place to be searched. --Outside the context of arrest or apprehension of an escaping prisoner, one must have good cause to fear imminent bodily harm before using deadly force. --To arrest someone, you need to have seen him do it, have a warrant, or have probable cause to believe he did it (which you'll need to get a warrant, anyhow). Assuming we agree on those (modulo the obvious exceptions for searches of autos, etc.), let's begin! Hank Walker: "...the reason the police can get away with commando-style raids in these Northern CA backwoods areas..." Actually, Canyon, CA is a suburb of San Francisco. It is NOT in Mendocino County, which is where the other drug raids, sweeps, etc. have been focused. "...is that a lot of people think that many of the residents are criminals..." Oh. And if you believe that, then the rules don't apply. I trust your basis for that belief is well-rooted in observable facts. Your (or a policeman's) "belief" of something doesn't--last I heard--constitute probable cause for a search. No, let me take that back. Until fairly recently (20 years, say), it was not uncommon for police to "round up the usual suspects" when something happened [the name of my reference for this escapes me, but he's the WVa Supreme Court judge who wrote "Why the Courts Don't Work"]. It STILL isn't uncommon--witness the reports in the SF Chronicle of the police rounding up hundreds of street people, just to clear the streets. The only time you hear anything loud is when some respectable person gets caught up by accident--e.g. the ACLU attorney who was arrested in SF last Spring for blocking the sidewalks as he observed the SF police harrassing street people. Boy, did THAT get the SFPD some unwanted publicity. Then they went and pulled a similar game with a local columnist (who just happened to be giving the chief a rough time). On second thought, I see what you mean--it IS all they need. "...The police obviously had good grounds for suspecting dope growers in that area..." Ah, like that notorious ex-Navy criminal investigator. Obviously a bad apple! "...and given previous gun battles..." Leaving aside the issue of whether prohibition laws make any sense, still: I think the word I used above is "imminent" danger. I'll grant a police officer's right(!) to carry an unholstered gun while serving a search warrant (I AM sensitive to realities). BUT--I won't grant him that right if he steps on my property without a warrant. Go re-read the part where the investigator's daughter described the police coming up their driveway. Now tell me that you really believe they had a warrant allowing them to be there. "but if I thought some gang member might be occupying the house up ahead, I'd think about myself first...." Amen, brother--but only granting that you had any business being on his property to start with--and I spell that "observed infraction" or "warrant". - - - - - Rodney Hoffman: I'm not so sure we're as far apart as you think. I quite agree that "despising civil libertarians" etc. are a symptom of the same underlying cause as the glorification of police. Let's back up a bit: Everyone agrees that the job of the police is to protect the community. Where things diverge is in HOW they're supposed to do the job: history tells us that most communities (i.e., the people in a position to do something to the police if they fuck up) DON'T CARE how the job gets done so long as it doesn't intrude on them. Naturally, the police (generalizing shamelessly--I KNOW this isn't true of each individual policeman!) tend to do what makes their jobs easier: they take short cuts. Eventually, they short-cut somebody who can fight back. Until they do, though, attitudes like Hank Walker's assure that they;ll go unmolested. Hank, you will recall, was perfectly happy to believe that the police were completely justified in barging onto peoples' property sans warrant. Now, how does this tie into my point? I think my point and yours were two sides of the same coin: Once there's a bureau in place to take care of a problem, people tend to abdicate responsibility for the problem to the bureau--so long as "they're doing a good job". Most people, being respectable folk, don't interact with the police outside traffic tickets; thus, they don't bear the brunt of any shortcuts the police take with the riff-raff. As long as crime is down, the police are doing a good job. When crime starts to rise (as it did from 1955-1980 or so), the police are wont to claim that they need more manpower, less fetters in the form of Miranda rights, etc. Given these things (they tell us), they can do a much better job. Since most people never run afoul of the law--and hence don't need to use these rights--they tend to prefer the benefit they can see (lower crime) over the one they can't (protection from arbitrary police behavior). This leads to calls for "support of the local police", to steal a phrase. Of course, people who are sensitive to loss of rights (or who have been forcibly searched without cause) tend to oppose this extension of police power. The majority (dare I invoke Hank Walker's name again?), though, see these folk as disrupters, as preventing the police from doing their job right. Over time, bureaucracies tend to grow. The police, alas, are no exception. They will tend to take on more and more responsibility for crime control, peace keeping, etc--and people will happily cede it to them: Who wants the rough, thankless job of keeping the streets safe from hoods, after all? Naturally, the police press for measures they think will make their jobs easier, and for measures which guarantee their monopoly on crime control--and the "support-the-police" types back them up in the legislature. The results are twofold: --A broadening of a policeman's discretion to stop people and search them, to investigate on flimsier and flimsier grounds, etc. Stop-and-frisk laws are an example of this. An officer doesn't need any probable cause to believe that you've committed a crime, he only needs a reason to believe that you may be armed (legally or not) and he may search you. Forcibly if need be. --An increasing monopoly on the part of the police on the means of defending person and property against crime. How are you allowed to defend yourself from a mugger? Well, let's see... In California, anyhow, you can't carry a stick (clubs are "dangerous weapons" and possession of one is worth 6mo in jail), you can't carry an openly-holstered gun (well, you CAN, but not within city limits), and you need a permit to carry mace (which is watered-down anyhow, and generally regarded by police as ineffective). Ah, yes! Call the police! - - - - - RWhitney: "Let's start with terms like 'raiders' and 'Rambo-style'..." I'd have to claim that the term "raider" is completely accurate. They entered the town in force (between 35 and 50 peace officers), tramped onto private property without warrants ,etc. If that ain't raiding, what is? The phrase "Rambo-style" is fanciful, I grant you, but seems appropriate under the circumstances--an armed team swooping down on apparently-innocent people. Were the citizens in mortal terror? probably not--but few enough people have experience facing armed men that I expect a number of them were rather frightened. "...The police don't use drug enforcement as an excuse to dress up in cammies and terrorize local communities..." Pray tell, then, why is it that the DEA and project CAMP (the anti-marijuana campaign in Mendocino Country) never want for one-time volunteers to go along. I have seen published reports of interviewees saying they wanted to try it once. NOT that they wanted to do their part in eliminating drugs, but just to go along once. Why, if not for the thrill? Frankly, I'm inclined to believe that the real problem here is the prohibition mentality on the part of certain government officials: I have seen interviews with various DEA higher-ups who imply strongly that they'd be happy to enforce bans against caffeine and alcohol--if only they could get Congress to see it their way. Read "The Drugged Nation", by a former DEA commissioner for a sample of this. "...drug enforcement is a VERY dangerous business..." I quite believe it, and while I don't think much of drug laws, I see why heavily-armed raids would be a necessity from the police side. BUT: While I'll grant your (the police's) right to stage a heavily-armed raid with the proper warrants behing you, I can't condone blatant trespassing and terrorism. If you'll re-read the article, you'll see a part where the Navy investigator's daughter describes the armed men coming up the driveway, telling her to get out of their way. I guess I'm not willing to believe that they had a warrant allowing them to search that property. Without such a warrant, WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY DOING THERE? Many similar stories come out of the Mendocino County enforcement activity: Stories of armed men marching up to peoples' doors and searching homes at gunpoint sans warrant, of helicopters flying low (<100ft) over property, and chasing people down roads. These stories have had enough weight--enough people experienced them--to convince a federal judge to issue an injunction against certain of the activities. Now, I would claim that policemen are well trained in the law. They KNEW they were trespassing, etc. While they may have believed with all their hearts that the homes they searched contained drugs--THEY HAD NO PROBABLE CAUSE. I infer this from their failure to obtain warrants to permit the searches. As far as I'm concerned, there went their right to appear armed on private property. "If you knew what I know, you might not be so quick to condemn the boys in blue/cammouflage." Objected to as assuming a fact not in evidence: You assume that I don't understand the problem from the police standpoint. I say "Not so!". A number of my friends are police or auxiliary police, and I KNOW that drug enforcement is dangerous, and I sympathize with an officer's desire to come through unharmed. You seem to think that these somehow excuse them from obeying the rules: I must disagree. "I have trouble believing you really accept this as the way things are. [Re use of force &c with impunity]" Oh, I don't believe it's universally true--but it's plenty true enough for my generalization. I suggest that you read the several books written by Paul Chivigny, late of the ACLU's Citizen's Rights project in New York City. The events he describes generally have the following scenario: --Civilian does something that is seen by an officer as threatening that officer's position or authority. Examples: Swearing at an officer in public, refusing an illegal order to "move along", complaining that the officer's car has a bumper sticker saying "Vote NO on the Civilian Review Board". --Officer arrests civilian, who is either roughed up in the process, or pushed down the stairs at the station. --Civilian is charged with Disorderly Conduct to justify the initial arrest, and with Resisting Arrest or Assaulting an Officer, to justify the roughing-up. --Judge believes the officer's version of the story. Or, if the charges are dismissed, it's done only if the civilian signs a waiver of claims against the police department. "Voluntarily", of course. --Having been convicted, there's no practical way to sue the officer over the incident, since the question of the conviction can be raised at trial.... This happens too many times, and to too many people who a priori I wouldn't believe created shoving scenes with police. I HAVE to believe it happens. But wait, there's more: There have been a number of anti-Kissinger demonstrations in San Francisco. Generally, the crowd gets out of hand at some point, necessitating some police action to keep traffic moving & the streets passable. Fine. The last time that happened, tho, there were some TV crews on the scene. They made the mistake of starting to film the police beat a young lady senseless--whereupon, the police attacked the TV crew, smashing their lights and cameras. No officer was ever disciplined in either of these incidents--the local chief claims that the police were defending themselves, because the TV lights blinded them, creating a dangerous situation. As far as I can tell, the only danger was to the officers' jobs and freedom. Or back up slightly--to Chicago, in 1968. I hold no brief for the violence perpetrated by the young protesters there--but I can't find any justification for the beatings and clubbings I saw take place ON TV. Discipline? Never was any. Now, if that had been plain ol' me chasing a drunk down the street with a club, I'd have wound up in jail facing charges of Assault with a Deadly Weapon--a felony, by George! "...I face a shooting review board..." Your department is better than most, and I must compliment it. I only wish more areas were like yours. "As a matter of fact, I'm more likely to be penalized for shooting someone as a police officer than as an average citizen, justified or not." Would it be out of place for me to point out that 11% of police shootings of suspects wind up being adjudged unjustified, vs 2% of civilian shootings of suspects? I have no comparable figures for murder and aggravated assault--I'd be very interested in them, if you do. "'Trampling up your driveway'...You're apparently talking about a different incident than the one in the article..." Actually, the first and third points I made, "Trampling up your driveway, ordering you out of the way at gunpoint" and "siezing your camera because you were taking photos of them" are taken directly from the article. I must admit, the second item is taken from a composite of reports from the Mendocino County drug enforcement actions, where a Federal court finally had to enjoin such behavior. "You say [this isn't a polemic against police officers], but the rest of your entry seems to indicate otherwise." Nyet. My polemic is against a state of affairs where police are regarded in much the same light as doctors are: all the responsibility for crime control is handed over to them, along with great power--power which is subject to abuse, as the incidents I've outlined above indicate. What I'd like to see is people taking back responsibility for their own safety, much as people are taking back responsibility for their own health: Using the doctor as an expert, and relying on his help, but providing your own first line of defense against disease. In the long run, I claim, it's the only stable way to do it. "Generally, though, I'll admit you're basically correct [about an officer's word being taken over a civilian's]. The reason for this though is that the officer generally has nothing to gain if you're found guilty or innocent..." Ah, but I've outlined a class of cases where the officer DOES care--because he was enforcing his position of authority rather than enforcing the law, and that can't be allowed to come out. Mind, I'm not saying that most or many officers are that way, but it DOES happen, and the way things are now set up, there's no efficient way to check the tendency. If we could weed out officers with John Wayne complex, we'd be much better off. But we can't, because the mechanisms aren't there, and police unions (understandably enough) resist their introduction. "This [that police don't get punished for brandishing weapons, where a civilian would] is the fault of your state legislature, not the police" Nope--in theory, brandishing a weapon is a felony in this state, and rightly so. (Brandishing means displaying a weapon and indicating a willingness to use it in such a way as to create a reasonable fear of its use). My complaint is that the people who were running up the Navy investigator's driveway were brandishing their weapons--and damn all is going to get done about it. The same is true of the brandishing of nightsticks, in my opinion--it ought to be illegal (the penal code isn't clear, and I don't have the annotated version to hand), but when was the last time an officer was arrested for it? vs the arrest of a civilian for possessing a club? "I agree with this [that we should leave crime control to the police, since they know best]. How well do you know the laws of your state?" Tolerably well, as it turns out--better than a number of officers I've talked with. Actually, I'm willing to believe that every civilian (close enough) knows that it's illegal break and enter in the dead of night, and can be trusted with deciding whether to use deadly force in defending against such an incident. I'll repeat here that civilians do better than police when it comes to mistakenly using deadly force (2% wrong vs 11% nationwide). On the strength of that, I claim that civilians should be encouraged to provide the first line of defense against crime in the home. Given that, it's a small step to encouraging people to provide their first line of defense against crime in the street--except that most states actively DIScourage it by effectively disarming civilians. I was a tad disappointed that you lend credence to one of my points--namely, that the police discourage civilian involvement. In the long run, this can't work, any more than I can abdicate responsibility for my personal health to my doctor. "You and the state of California made this decision [that I don't need to be armed, since the police will defend me]. Don't blame the police." I don't blame the police--that's my whole point. NONE of this has been blaming the police for this attitude--though police departments DO foster it (it is the official policy of the New York and Chicago and Oakland PDs, for example, that civilian ownership of guns is a bad thing and should be discouraged, and you agree that crime control should be left completely to the police, apparently). Actually, I own a .38, and keep a speed-loader filled with Glasers. I also don't have any children, so this is a tolerably safe thing to do. I also live on the 10th floor, so I never expect to have to use them--though I can consistently hit in the 8 ring on a sillouette target at 15 yards, firing 6 shots in 15 seconds. And I KNOW the highly-restricted conditions under which I could reasonably use that gun; I'm not going to shoot thru the door just because someone is scratching around the lock. According to studies of criminals, the single most important deterrant--the reason most given for avoiding a particular target--is a fear that the occupant is armed. This sounds like an argument for widespread possession of guns to me. "I don't know about these incidents [the 3 police shootings of face-down suspects that were ruled accidental], but just maybe they were accidents, or had you forgotten to consider that?" Nope, I hadn't. But I find it a trifle odd: Once the suspect has been handcuffed (as in 2 of the cases I'm sure of), there's no need to be pointing a shotgun at his head (which disc